"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Anything which claims to do a multitude of tasks is always a compromise
compared to one optimised for a particular job.


So what?

If it sells in large quantities, and makes huge profits for its
manufacturers/distributors/retailers (and has done so consistently)
for over 40 years, that indicates a high degree of customer
satisfaction leading to very many repeat purchases.

I congratulate WD40 on its massive and enduring success. None of your
pedantic criticisms are in the least bit significant, except to you.

Tim S wrote:
The Medway Handyman coughed up some electrons that declared:

Makes you wonder why they sell millions of cans a day doesn't it?

Fiat's single handed effort at installing crap ignition systems in the 70's,
probably accounted more most of the sales in the 70's - that and
EasyStart...


If that was remotely true, FIAT's adoption of reliable electrics would
have all but eliminated sales of WD40. It would appear that nothing
could be further from the truth.

And as for FIAT's crap ignition systems, nothing could be worse than a
Lucas system on a 1970s British car. They have also gone, but WD40
continues to sell strongly.

Bruce coughed up some electrons that declared:

Tim S wrote:
The Medway Handyman coughed up some electrons that declared:

Makes you wonder why they sell millions of cans a day doesn't it?

Fiat's single handed effort at installing crap ignition systems in the
70's, probably accounted more most of the sales in the 70's - that and
EasyStart...


If that was remotely true, FIAT's adoption of reliable electrics would
have all but eliminated sales of WD40. It would appear that nothing
could be further from the truth.

I didn't say the electrics weren't still crap

And as for FIAT's crap ignition systems, nothing could be worse than a
Lucas system on a 1970s British car.

True - "Lucas - Prince of Darkness" as they say...

They have also gone, but WD40
continues to sell strongly.

http://tinyurl.com/3wp5u

;-

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:50:39 UTC, Bruce wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:01:16 UTC, Bruce wrote:

stuart noble wrote:

It's mineral oil with a solvent so that it can be sprayed and squirted
into inaccessible places. The residue that's left when the solvent
evaporates is oil, so I can't see the problem.

The problem is that many people resent success. WD40 is a hugely
successful product, so it generates a lot of resentment.

Rubbish....it isn't a lubricant, it's a water displacer.


Who cares? I didn't make any claims for what it did, merely stated
that it is a hugely successful product, which is undeniable.


I seriously doubt that WD40 would sell in anywhere near the quantities
it does if it was remotely as bad as its critics allege.


Similar comments apply to 3 in 1 oil, McDonald's hamburgers, Kellogg's
Corn Flakes

I like all of those, anyway.


For every one of those products, there are people like you who carp
and criticise, claiming that they aren't any good or don't live up to
the hype. Yet despite you and your kind, all these products are
hugely successful.

You must find that extremely irritating.

How do you get that? I haven't criticised ANY of them! You're reading
what you want to read....

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Another one for your additional input...
SNIP

===WD40===
WD stands for 'water displacer.' Water displacers are of very limited
use in DIY today, primarily used to reduce rusting of tools in damp
storage. Machine oil is the product of choice for this.

Could someone explain the apparent witch hunt of WD40 around here? IMO
its
an excellent product.

Has anyone done a controlled test on its rust prevention qualities against
machine oil?

WD40 also acts as a penetrating oil, though there are cheaper and in
some people's opinion better brands out there, such as plusgas.

Granted its not a specific penetrating oil, but as a 'one stop' multi
purpose product its pretty good at many things.

WD40 is not recommended as a lubricant.

Not by whom? It clearly is a lubricant. I've used it on hinges, locks,
fans, tools, padlocks and all sorts of other things.

Liquid graphite is better on many locks.
I have no idea where the stuff I used came from, probably some dead uncles
shed.

Dave - The Medway Handyman


Adam

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
wrote:


You simply can't say that without some kind of evidence. I've just
e-mailed
WD40 to ask if its safe on rubber & plastics - lets see what they have to
say.


uk.bondage is that way

Adam

On 2008-12-30, The Medway Handyman wrote:
[snip]
I suspect the predudice surrounding WD40 is because (a) its American & (b)
its hugely successful.


I'm "anti-USA", but the origins of WD40 hadn't crossed my mind
The excellent LPS lubricants/anticorrosion sprays are streets ahead of
WD40 and are made in the USA as is the also excellent Lear ACF-50 .

WD40 is crap because it evaporates too quickly. I suspect that the
residues that others have refered to are down to its solvent properties.
(Check out it's ability to totally ruin older electrical insulation
materials It's a passable penetrating oil and cleans without the
fire risk of white spirit or petrol.

I imagine that the success of WD40 is down to marketing (c.f. the
success of Oracle over Ingres, or Shimano over Capagnolo.)

WD40 offers a short term fix like disposable planer blades
and hardpoint saws.

--
Jan

The Medway Handyman wrote:
wrote:
OK... version 2:




===WD40===
WD stands for 'water displacer.' Water displacers are of limited use
in DIY today, primarily used
* to reduce rusting of tools in damp storage
* to start wet power tools.

I'm not with the last bit? Start wet power tools?

Machine oil is the temporary coating of choice for preventing rust,
and is widely used as a rust preventing coating on imported steel
tools.

But that doesn't mean WD40 won't do the job - and again where is the
evidence?

WD40 also acts as a penetrating oil, though there are cheaper and in
some people's opinion better brands out there, such as plusgas.

Its not sold specifically as a penetrating oil, its a multi purpose product.

And thats the point you are missing. One can of WD40 can replace half a
dozen cans of specific products.

WD40 is not recommended as a lubricant as it contains more solvent
than oil, and becomes gummy.

Not reccommended by whom? There is an insignificant amount of anecdotal
evidence against, and an even smaller amount in favour. That doesn't prove
the case. Its advertised as a lubricant & made in the USA - I'm pretty sure
there would be law suits flying about if that claim wasn't (at least in
part) true.

WD40 can be used as a cleaner in some situations since it contains
Stoddard's solvent. Paraffin is a much cheaper alternative that doesnt
leave the sticky residue.

Arrrggggh!!! What sticky residue? I've been using it for donkeys years &
never come across any shape or form of residue - sticky or otherwise.

SNIP

Many appliances have been ruined by the indiscriminate application of
WD40. It is not a cure-all and there are common products and materials
to which it should not be applied. These include rubber products, some
plastics,

You simply can't say that without some kind of evidence. I've just e-mailed
WD40 to ask if its safe on rubber & plastics - lets see what they have to
say.


I've seen things ruined by it, someone else in this thread has, and
this chap has come across the problem as part of his living:
quote:


Arfa Daily wrote:

It's not so much that WD40 won't do the job in this case, Fred - it
probably
would. However, once people get the idea that WD40 works on one part
of some
electronic equipment, they will try to use it to cure everything from
a
blown fuse to a slipping belt, and trust me when I tell you that in
the 35
years that I've been mending electronic equipment every day for a
living, I
have seen many an otherwise servicable item, wrecked beyond
reasonable
recovery, by the use of WD40. The smell is so characteristic that as
soon as
an item thus treated arrives on your bench, the response is "Oh no,
it's
been WD40'd ...". Once in there, it has a tendency to 'creep' around
and
seek out and wreck anything that is vaguely related to rubber, and
the
'waxy' deposit that it leaves behind, is nigh-on impossible to
remove.

That's why I would recommend using the proper stuff. It's easily
obtained,
cheap, and won't do damage to other components if you get a bit
liberal with
it. Right stuff for the job. You wouldn't run your barbecue stove on
acetylene, would you ? :-)


Arfa


end quote
NT

Jan Wysocki coughed up some electrons that declared:


I imagine that the success of WD40 is down to marketing (c.f. the
success of Oracle over Ingres, or Shimano over Capagnolo.)

Perhaps they used this for their ads somewhere in the back woods?:

http://www.dionic.net/wd-40.jpg

WARNING Dr Smith!!! NOT worksafe/kidsafe. Not for prudes either. You have
been warned!

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember saying something
like:

===Swarfega===
Paraffin gel with additives. Paraffin alone makes quite a good
substitute.

Years ago (when I was young and stupid(er)) I discovered that cleaning
my mucky oily hands in clean engine oil or kerosene really worked.
Luckily I didn't do it for too long before a bod from the lab next door
spotted me doing it and informed me with some passion that I was
cruising for skin cancer.
I haven't done that since and have (nearly) always used barrier creams
too.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:17:39 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

WD40 is not recommended as a lubricant.
Not by whom? It clearly is a lubricant. I've used it on hinges,
locks, fans, tools, padlocks and all sorts of other things.
In my experience a squeaky door "lubricated" with WD40 will become a
squeaky door again. One lubricated with a proper oil doesn't.

I've got padlocks on sheds & gates 20+ years old, given a squirt of
WD40 annually and none have gummed up or gone sticky - they all work
perfectly.
That's 'casue you keep adding back the volatiles that have
evaporated. It does leave a residue over time from a thick gum to a
dry varnish like layer depending on the enviroment. The "wetter gum"
stages are sticky and any muck floating about will get stuck. When
the kit is operated/used this muck then gets drawn into the
mechanisium and increases the rate of wear. This probably isn't an
issue for a shed padlock but for something in constant use...

My garage padlock is used at least once a day, 7 days a week. Good as new.

I suspect the predudice surrounding WD40 is because (a) its American & (b)
its hugely successful.


I used to use it quite a bit. Then I realised that if used on something
that already had some lubricant, that was washed out. In the example of
a padlock, it is not unknown for the body to have some sort of grease in
it. But maybe around the edges a touch of rust has started or it simply
needs a retouch of oil. Spray WD40 and it feels great. But within a
fairly short period (probably a few months), the whole thing is seizing
up because the original lubricant has been washed from where it was
doing some good - to elsewhere. So maybe spraying your padlock every
year works OK. But I used White Lithium spray grease - and that has been
fine for (IIRC) about three years so far. (It might be a *really* bad
idea to use that grease on a padlock - but seems to have worked for me.)

Now this gets on to where I really have a problems with WD40 - you very
often get a weep of dirty oily stuff wherever it is used. Sometimes this
occurs quite a while after application. Definitely bad onto a white
carpet under a hinge.

But it's funny the way people are (me included!). We spend ages talking
about using car body filler, Fein Multimasters and angle grinders for
everything under the sun - and then criticise WD40 for being so general
purpose/multifunctional!

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bruce wrote:
stuart noble wrote:

It's mineral oil with a solvent so that it can be sprayed and squirted
into inaccessible places. The residue that's left when the solvent
evaporates is oil, so I can't see the problem.


The problem is that many people resent success. WD40 is a hugely
successful product, so it generates a lot of resentment.

Just shows the power of advertising and the gullibility of those who
believe it.

Or just lack of knowledge.

What percentage of the general public understand what makes a good
lubricant, rustproofer or penetrating oil? 1%?

What perncetage of the public knows what else one can choose for these
jobs?

What perncetage of the public thinks wd40 is a somehow magic product,
whose actions are impossible to duplicate with simple low cost goods
available on a lot more shelves than wd40?

Why would one choose to pay several times the price for no benefit?


This is the basic formula for all such commercially successful but
very basic products. Combine a few ingredients, market it as a wonder
solution for lots of problems, slap a high margin on it so people
think it must be wonderful, and off ya go, sales sales sales. Its
nothing to do with resentment, just a case of seeing past the hype and
knowing how to do better with more widely available ingredients for
less cost. Subject knowledge versus 'ooh, that advert sounds great.'


Similar comments apply to 3 in 1 oil, McDonald's hamburgers, Kellogg's
Corn Flakes and basically anything, anyone or any organisation that
makes a profit.

Ah. You do live on some sink estate. Kellogg's cornflakes have more
nutritional value in the cardboard packet than contents. MacDonalds are
basically rubbish. Plenty of fast food available in the UK which is better
for you and better value too.

This leads to a belief that, if you buy any one of these successful
products, you must have been short changed.

its several times the price per ml - if thats your buying policy good
luck to you. For me a higher price needs to have a justification. For
WD40 I've never heard one.


Anything which claims to do a multitude of tasks is always a compromise
compared to one optimised for a particular job.


Bruce wrote:
This leads to a belief that, if you buy any one of these successful
products, you must have been short changed.

Its many times the price per ml of alternatives that are even more
widely available. Where's the advantage? There are lots of diy
products that do a lukewarm job at premium prices, see any shopping
channel - do you recommend those too? Do you think we, ukdiy, should?
Maybe its just me, but I just cant see a reason to. IMHO ukdiy is
about how to do a good job without paying several times the cost
needlessly.


NT

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Jan Wysocki coughed up some electrons that declared:


I imagine that the success of WD40 is down to marketing (c.f. the
success of Oracle over Ingres, or Shimano over Capagnolo.)

Perhaps they used this for their ads somewhere in the back woods?:

http://www.dionic.net/wd-40.jpg

WARNING Dr Smith!!! NOT worksafe/kidsafe. Not for prudes either. You have
been warned!

Nice one.

Adam

Mark wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message

Could someone explain the apparent witch hunt of WD40 around here? IMO
its an excellent product.

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


Thank you - that pretty much answers the questions raised.


NT

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember saying something
like:

===Swarfega===
Paraffin gel with additives. Paraffin alone makes quite a good
substitute.

Years ago (when I was young and stupid(er)) I discovered that cleaning
my mucky oily hands in clean engine oil or kerosene really worked.
Luckily I didn't do it for too long before a bod from the lab next door
spotted me doing it and informed me with some passion that I was
cruising for skin cancer.
I haven't done that since and have (nearly) always used barrier creams
too.

Paraffin is still used medicinally, and AFAIK is not a known
carcinogen.

Engine oil I'm less certain about, but if it were known to be
carcinogenic I think a lot more precautions would be taken at garages,
and there would be stark awrnings on all engine oil containers..


NT

coughed up some electrons that declared:


Engine oil I'm less certain about, but if it were known to be
carcinogenic I think a lot more precautions would be taken at garages,
and there would be stark awrnings on all engine oil containers..


I thought it was the products of combustion that made it carcenogenic.

Cheers

Tim

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "The Medway Handyman"
saying something like:

Makes you wonder why they sell millions of cans a day doesn't it?

People are stupid.

wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember saying something
like:

===Swarfega===
Paraffin gel with additives. Paraffin alone makes quite a good
substitute.
Years ago (when I was young and stupid(er)) I discovered that cleaning
my mucky oily hands in clean engine oil or kerosene really worked.
Luckily I didn't do it for too long before a bod from the lab next door
spotted me doing it and informed me with some passion that I was
cruising for skin cancer.
I haven't done that since and have (nearly) always used barrier creams
too.

Paraffin is still used medicinally, and AFAIK is not a known
carcinogen.

Engine oil I'm less certain about, but if it were known to be
carcinogenic I think a lot more precautions would be taken at garages,
and there would be stark awrnings on all engine oil containers..


NT

It is indeed used medicinally (various tear products, for constipation,
on gauze dressings, etc.) - but it was removed from products such as
dried vine fruits a number of years ago for some reason that I have
completely forgotten. And how does the definition of paraffin in
medicine differ from the blue flame fuel?

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

In message , Rod
writes
wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember saying something
like:

===Swarfega===
Paraffin gel with additives. Paraffin alone makes quite a good
substitute.
Years ago (when I was young and stupid(er)) I discovered that cleaning
my mucky oily hands in clean engine oil or kerosene really worked.
Luckily I didn't do it for too long before a bod from the lab next door
spotted me doing it and informed me with some passion that I was
cruising for skin cancer.
I haven't done that since and have (nearly) always used barrier creams
too.
Paraffin is still used medicinally, and AFAIK is not a known
carcinogen.
Engine oil I'm less certain about, but if it were known to be
carcinogenic I think a lot more precautions would be taken at garages,
and there would be stark awrnings on all engine oil containers..
NT

It is indeed used medicinally (various tear products, for constipation,
on gauze dressings, etc.) - but it was removed from products such as
dried vine fruits a number of years ago for some reason that I have
completely forgotten. And how does the definition of paraffin in
medicine differ from the blue flame fuel?


it's just a difference in length of the molecule

--
geoff

wrote in message news:be09c938-f260-

Engine oil I'm less certain about, but if it were known to be
carcinogenic I think a lot more precautions would be taken at garages,
and there would be stark awrnings on all engine oil containers..


Er used engine oil is.
Big H&S poster campaign in garages in the early 80s warning of the high-risk
to testicular cancer.
All mechanics now use gloves when working on vehicles, and they are not
normally the type of people that worry about getting their hands dirty.


-

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember saying something
like:

Engine oil I'm less certain about, but if it were known to be
carcinogenic I think a lot more precautions would be taken at garages,
and there would be stark awrnings on all engine oil containers..

Ok. Have it your own way - just don't blame anyone else for posting a
load of rubbish.
Engine oil as hair conditioner additive - I've read it all now.
Perhaps in Rajnapur in 1920, someone found it gave a lovely
Brylcreem-like sheen to their bonce.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:19:22 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

Is it cotton and raw(?) linseed oil that can spontaneously combust?

I'd be careful with all drying oils.

And I recall seeing fireproof "oily rags" containers with heavy self-closing
lids, so it may apply to other oils as well.


Thomas Prufer

Mark wrote:
wrote in message news:be09c938-f260-

Engine oil I'm less certain about, but if it were known to be
carcinogenic I think a lot more precautions would be taken at garages,
and there would be stark awrnings on all engine oil containers..


Er used engine oil is.
Big H&S poster campaign in garages in the early 80s warning of the high-risk
to testicular cancer.
All mechanics now use gloves when working on vehicles, and they are not
normally the type of people that worry about getting their hands dirty.

Unless I'm mistaken I think the article talks about new engine oil
being used for hand cleaning, not filthy stuff.

Re engine oil as conditioner, I guess some clarification is needed.
The article says clearly it should not be done and why, but maybe that
aint clear enough.


NT