[AMRadio] More WD-40

[Shirli Sieb]

-----Original Message-----
From: Barry L. Ornitz	[ornitz at tricon.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 8:42 PM
To: Old Tube Radios
Subject: Re: More WD-40


Friends,

I have not been following the Old Tube Radios list lately
due to time conflicts.  But I have saved all the messages
and I intend to read them all when time permits.  Scanning
the subjects, however, I noted the following article which
caught my interest.  I probably should have joined the
discussion earlier.  My apologies for not doing so...

I hope Greg is not referring to me as the expert he spoke
with.  I recall Greg had asked me questions about WD-40 in
the past, but what he quotes appears somewhat different
than what I expect I may have said, or perhaps taken
slightly out of context.  I know our group has several
chemists and perhaps another chemical engineer, but I also
have written many posts about WD-40 on this list over the
years.

WD-40 according to its latest MSDS from the manufacturer is
made of Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates (approximately 70
percent), Petroleum Base Oil (greater than 20 percent), and
Other Ingredients (less than 10 percent).  This MSDS does
not go into detail but it lists the Chemical Abstracts
reference number for the ingredients.  This is done purely
to confuse people as their old MSDS information of the
early 1990's gave the details.  If you look up the CAS
numbers, you will find that CAS 8052-41-3 is Stoddard
Solvent.  This is a refined kerosene cut from petroleum
distillation with tighter boiling point specifications than
the kerosene commonly sold as fuel (and without the gel-
suppressing additives).  So the aliphatic petroleum
distillate is merely Stoddard Solvent.  The petroleum base
oil is CAS 64742-65-0.  Looking this up, you will find it
is mineral oil that has been solvent dewaxed.  Chemically
it is very much like ordinary motor or gear oil (but
without the viscosity and anti-oxidant additives).

So WD-40 is mainly Stoddard Solvent with some light mineral
oil dissolved in it.  The other ingredients, those that
they are so secretive about, used to be various tin,
zinc and other metal salts (according to my old MSDS
information).  These are used as anti-oxidants for the most
part.  I do not know what is used in WD-40 today.  But the
main differences between motor oil, certain transmission
fluids, hydraulic fluid, and many vacuum pump oils are
these anti-oxidant ingredients.  The exact choice depends
on what metal the oil will be used with, with aluminum
having somewhat different requirements than steel.  Low
vapor pressure additives are needed with vacuum pump oils,
and high temperature additives are needed with transmission
fluids.  Calcium sulfonate and zinc dialkyl-dithio-
phosphate are popular materials these days in many such
oils.  Such materials can eventually absorb moisture and
become slightly conductive after long periods of time (and
after most of the oil evaporates).  There are probably
several reasons why WD-40 does not list its exact
ingredients.  First, of course, is that they want to
maintain their "mystique".  But I suspect that another
reason is that the ingredients change from batch to batch
depending on whose oil they buy.  Different suppliers use
different anti-oxidants.  A full chemical analysis of WD-40
would probably be fruitless for this reason.

As to the WD-40 "mystique", I think their initial offering
caught on because it was in an aerosol can.  From then on,
the rest was hype (see their web site if you like this sort
of pseudoscientific junk).  I do not believe their story
about the stuff being the 40th formulation tried.
Kerosene/mineral oil mixtures had been used for years as
penetrating oils.  Their early aerosol cans were
pressurized with propane and butane which accounts for
stories of it being a "starting fluid".  To minimize the
fire hazard (which is still quite significant), they use
carbon dioxide as the propellant today.  For electronic
applications, I prefer to avoid aerosol applicators anyway,
but they do come in handy occasionally.

Going back to the issue of electronic cleaners and
lubricants, Stoddard solvent will certainly dissolve quite
a bit of old grease.  But to really clean old switches
and detent mechanisms and such, you may need something more
aggressive than this.  In the "good old days", when you
could still get Freon-TF (trichloro-trifluoro-ethylene), it
was the best choice.  It would dissolve many silicone
greases (that are not touched by Stoddard solvent) as well
as petroleum greases, and it did not harm plastics.  Today,
you often have to use several solvents in succession to
fully clean such parts.  Starting with Stoddard solvent is
a good choice.  VM&P (varnish makers and painters) naphtha
is similar and will dissolve many of the same things and is
commonly available.  Remember, it is quite flammable (just
like WD-40).  After this, I use a second wash with a polar
solvent like acetone or isopropanol.  Acetone can harm some
plastics, but I like it as it degreases better than the
alcohol and is not very toxic.  Some might suggest the
various chlorinated solvents such as trichloroethylene, but
these are far more toxic and they can harm many plastics
too.  No matter which solvents are used, always work in a
well ventilated area (preferably outdoors) far away from
any source of sparks and flames.  Avoid breathing the
vapors and wear chemically resistant gloves (the Buna-N
nitrile gloves, like the Solvex type are preferred).  Do
not apply the solvents to hot equipment, and do not turn
the equipment back on until the solvent smell is completely
gone.

After cleaning, you now need lubrication.  While Caig and
other manufacturers of electronic lubricants all generally
use mineral oils, they use different anti-oxidants.  Some
typical ones are tocopherol (Vitamin E), butylated-hydroxy-
toluene and butylated-hydroxy-anisole (BHT and BHA often
seen in food preservatives), and even modified
hydroquinones.  Each manufacturer has his own preference,
but all of these lubricants are designed to not leave
conductive residues.  These are best for switch contacts.
On detent mechanisms, I prefer a longer lasting lubricant
such as a white grease or a lithium grease.

And yes, the electronic lubricants and cleaners do not
provide lubrication for as long as WD-40 might.  But they
evaporate fairly cleanly, not leaving a residue behind as
WD-40 often does.  I would prefer to reapply the lubricant
over the potential damage of conductive residues.

Patience and "elbow grease" are often needed for proper
contact cleaning.  Relying on a shot of WD-40, or even the
Caig/Cramolin products, alone is only a temporary
expedient.  Someone who sprays every switch, tube socket,
etc. as the first step in troubleshooting may be wasting
his time, and in many cases may be doing more harm than
good (you see this suggestion on other lists more often than here).

[Lest I appear one sided, I should note that Caig is guilty
of far more meaningless hype than WD-40 ever could be.
They make a good product, but I cannot stand the tripe they
use to market to audiophools.  While I generally trim my
posts, I am quoting the entire earlier one because it was
posted several digests ago.  I do ask that this post not be
sent to other lists.]

   73,  Barry L. Ornitz  WA4VZQ          ornitz at tricon.net

----- Original Message -----
From: <WA1KBQ at aol.com>
To: "Old Tube Radios" <boatanchors at theporch.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 10:12 PM
Subject: More WD-40, (beating a dead horse etc.)


> As many of you know this list is blessed with a few experts whom often
feel
> compelled out of a sense of their civic duty or something to challenge
any
> advise given in response to someone's request for help. This message is a
> follow-up to a particular response given by some DX guy to my recent
comments
> about the benefits of using WD-40 to effectively clean switches and
controls.
> You may also remember I said I had tried the Caig Labs DeOxit several
years
> ago and that treatment had to be redone a few months later. This was a
> bandswitch which became balky again for whatever reason. I retreated it
with
> WD-40 and it is still fine and has never given any more trouble since.
> Anyway, my piece was called "a lot of blather" from "a lack of any real
> knowledge." I was taken to task for "not knowing" that the stuff was
"mostly
> just modified kerosene or stoddard solvent." He didn't say he was a
chemical
> engineer but advised me to look it up in any chemical formulary book
> (available at all real libraries he said). I haven't done that yet but
did
> ask our own resident chemical engineer (Ph.D.) about that and he said he
> doubted I would find my answer there due to proprietary ingredients. He
said
> the MSDS also will not help much because that is only a list of materials
> that may present a health safety risk in order to comply with OSHA
> regulations. He said the only way to positively identify the exact
chemical
> make-up of the solution was by "spectralanalysis." I am willing to bet
you
> will find something more than kerosene in there. Besides the kerosene (or
> stoddard solvent or whatever) is a "carrier." Its job is to get the
> ingredients to the job site and then evaporate soon afterwards. It is
there
> temporarily only and is designed to flash off soon afterwards leaving
behind
> the active ingredients whatever they may be. Kerosene is a solvent of
course
> and probably helps with the initial cleaning too before it is vaporized.
I am
> not saying WD-40 is absolutely without a doubt the best thing going but I
am
> in agreement with the Tektronix People who sent a can of the stuff to one
of
> their customers that it is pretty good.
>
> Regards, Greg Gore; WA1KBQ
>