Talk:WD-40

message: Changed the dates of the company name change and first public stock offering, based on the history on WD-40's own web site.Kevin Forsyth 15:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Older comments

message: Anyone add further to what WD40 actaully contains?
I have heard that a key ingredients is whitespirt (or terpentine substite)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.125.1.112 (talk • contribs) .
:The US can says it "CONTAINS PETROLEUM DISTILLATES Harmful or fatal if swallowed..." etc.  The MSDS here gives more details. -SCEhardT 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats in it? 

message: It's great for killing flying critters indoors.  Knocks them to the floor so you can dispose of them, without leaving those toxic fumes. -71.49.163.77 02:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like it would leave a bit of an oily mess on your carpet, better to use one of the electrocuting racquets designed for the purpose. No residue. 2.31.162.111 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insecticide 

message: My company did the research and publication of a page that provides a nice overview of the history and uses of WD-40. It is at:
http://www.coxhardware.com/Products/WD40.html
It duplicates some of the information in the article, but it includes more information and a different presentation. Please see if you think this link is beneficial for the WD-40 Wikipedia article.
Thanks,
Sally Seaver Shabaka, Active Lightning, 30 September 2006
:Sorry, I'll have to suggest against adding this site as an external link because it doesn't have significant new information but it does have significant advertising -SCEhardT 04:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible External Link for Article 

message: I've tagged the article for cleanup because it reads in part like an instruction manual. Articles should not have prescriptive commentary on usage. Chris Cunningham 09:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone tag 

message: Please note that Caramba is not similar to WD-40.
Caramba is a penetrating solvent, used for loosening rusted bolts etc., but the lubricating properties of Caramba are poor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.23.167 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caramba 

message: I have removed the majority of the "computing uses" from the uses portion of the article, because they are not only unverified, but are likely untrue, and advise potentially dangerous uses of the product:
Original section before modification:
When it comes to computing WD-40 can be used to clean and lubricate mechanical mice. Additionally, it can be used to clean keyboards that have become stuck because of drinks spillage or human debris (including cleaning human grease and sweat off key tops). It can even be used as a screen cleaner, although care should be taken on plastic TFT monitors to ensure there isn't a negative reaction (although WD-40 is, in nearly all instances around the house, inert). It should not be used to free-up fans inside a computer because of its tendency to dry and attract dust; although temporarily solving the problem, WD-40 will in fact make it worse over time.
Rationale:
*WD-40 is not a good lubricant for plastic parts, as it dissolves or breaks down certain types of plastic. Most mechanical mice use heavier greases for lubrication where necessary. WD-40 would be a temporary solution at best, and would destroy the mouse at worst. Considering dust is the primary fouler of mechanical mice, it is pretty clear that using a lubricant known to collect dust would be a bad idea.
*Similarly, WD-40 may dissolve or damage plastic parts inside a keyboard, and will likely cause dust and skin particles that would normally blow away to collect inside the keyboard.
*The residue left by WD-40 on the keys would be far worse than the "human grease" it is purported to remove. As mentioned earlier in the article, the smell of WD-40 lingers, and contact with the skin is to be avoided.
*WD-40 should under no circumstances be used to clean a screen. Most CRT monitors have anti-reflective and anti-static coatings that do not tolerate solvents well. Further, all antireflective coating (that I have encountered) cease to function properly when oily substances are applied - WD-40 leaves a layer of oil behind. The situation is even worse for LCD monitors. It is very likely that this "tip" would make the screen worse, and quite possible that it would irreparably damage the surface of the screen. Users should follow the instructions provided by the manufacturer to clean the screen.
Do not add this section back until you can verify (from a reputible source) that these actions will not do any damage. The last thing we need is people coming after Wikipedia because they melted their mouse with WD-40, or got cancer from spraying it all over their keyboard.
JMPZ 18:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable content 

message: The opening description seems jumbled to me. I believe this article could use a history section, as well as a Common Misconceptions section. Any ideas? ~ (Wakandas black panther 00:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History? Myths?

message: I added a photo which I took for German WP; therefore the text on the can is in German. Someone elso will take a shot of an "english speaking" can some other time. --EvaK 19:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: The article quotes two entirely different formulations. Is that correct? --David Broadfoot (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  German formula totally different to the other one? 

message: Superscript text I have read in magazines in the past that WD-40 helps to treat the pain of arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome and tendonitis. I do not have anything to verify this though. perhaps someone else does Aaron2785 (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds more like voodoo than medicine. --EvaK (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  other uses 

message: Hi, I've added that WD-40 is also dielectric so maybe somebody can supply its electric resistance specification. Bohus Kaifer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.160.71.74 (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WD-40 being a dielectric  

message: A good way to get an argument going on a gun talk board is to mention WD-40 for fireams maintenance. It is a convenient spray, it is a penetrating oil, it displaces moisture, so it would appear ideal. However, I have taken a metal cup and sprayed WD-40 into it and let it set, checking at the end of a week for a few months: at first WD-40 is runny like a very light oil but as the solvent evaporates, the oil left behind gets thick and thicker until it is syrupy. I advise people to think of WD-40 as a water displacement wax in a light penetrating solvent that ultimately evaporates: good for cleaning and protecting exterior surfaces, not good for cleaning or lubricating mechanisms, unless the parts can be disassembled and wiped off individually. -- A mechanism gummed with old WD40 can be cleaned by spraying with fresh WD-40, allowing the solvent to soften the gum, then spraying the mechanism clear with compressed air or aerosol brake cleaner (outdoors only please). -- I have cleaned rusty parts by soaking in WD-40 (the parts not me) for 48 hours then shaving the rust off with a razor blade. -- My law enforcement acquaintances warn me that WD-40 will kill the primers of cartridges. I put six rounds each of three common military and police pistol cartridges in a ziplock bag and sprayed with WD-40 and set aside six rounds of each caliber from the same boxes. Two weeks later I fired them at the range. The 7.62x25mm fired but would not function the action. The .45 ACP had one dud, five fired. All .38 special fired. All the untreated ammo fired and functioned perfectly. Depending on the seal around the bullet or primer, WD-40 has varying effects on gunpowder and cartridge primers, none good; but WD-40 cannot be counted on to kill firearms primers.Naaman Brown (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in Firearms Maintenance 

message: "A sample of WD-40 that was sprayed onto a piece of steel plate and left outside at -25 for about 20 minutes froze."
This sounds like original research.  No cite is provided.  The unit of temperature is not even provided.  Removed.  199.212.17.130 (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freezing statement removed 

message: Is there a source for the Material Safety Data Sheet cited in the article? I ask because the article states that WD-40 is 50% Stoddard Solvent, which conflicts with information on the WD-40 Facts & Myths page:
+++++
Stoddard Solvent
Myth: WD-40 contains Stoddard Solvent.
Fact: Over the past few decades, the name Stoddard Solvent was synonymous with all mineral spirits.  Today, the mineral spirits found in products like ours are more refined and processed (see hydrogenation, hydrotreating and distillation techniques) providing mixtures with varying boiling points, cleaning ability, and chemical composition. 
The catchall phrase “Stoddard Solvent” is no longer adequate to tell the proper story. WD-40 does indeed have 50% mineral spirits, but they are refined and purified for specific characteristics needed to meet today’s performance, regulatory, and safety requirements.''
+++++
The US MSDS available on their website also makes no mention of Stoddard solvent. Should this be changed?
Sperrfeuer (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stoddard solvent is probably the best general term to describe the mineral spirit content of WD40 in American English, despite what the website says (which sounds like marketing speak to me.) The equivalent term in British English is white spirit, which the company would probably argue about too.--Ef80 (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stoddard Solvent 

message: The See Also section has a link to something that, by coincidence, share the same name, and a reference in popular culture. Is either of these links relevant enough to be there? Covarr (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: This is probably quite nit-picky, but I really don't think the picture should include a bicycle in the background.  Many, many people (including professional bike mechanics) strongly recommend NOT using WD40 on bicycles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spazlink (talk • contribs) 00:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah!  Couldn't agree more!  This falls into the same "I heard someone say" category as the often repeated nonsense that it's somehow not a lubricant.Tgm1024 (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo with bicycle 

message: One photo, perhaps two, might suffice (showing a current can and perhaps a historic relic). The "Smart Straw" picture smells of blatant advertising.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.172.170 (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many photos .. 

message: :"WD-40's formula is a trade secret. The product is not patented to avoid completely disclosing its ingredients."
Assuming someone put their mind to it, is modern chemistry not up to the task of analysing a can of the product and determining its exact composition? 81.159.110.218 (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that as it is not patented and secret, the composition may have varied considerably over time and in different places (as is the case with many consumer products).  The propellant certainly has. It is quite conceivable that an early version contained an amine rust inhibitor compound, which would give a fishy smell.  Current versions clearly have a fragrance added. Chemical Engineer (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition 

message: Many lots of MIL-C-81309 water displacing thin film lubricant smell just like WD-40. Does anyone know if the WD-40 company has ever sold their product to the U.S. Government under this military specification? Ray Trygstad (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIL-C-81309 

message: WD-40 is frequently used in the field of electromagnetic interference (EMI) for establishing a low resistance bond to ground or between mating surfaces.  Even in this field, many engineers are unaware of or skeptical of WD-40's usefulness.  While working as an engineer on a military contract, we tried different methods for establishing a lasting low resistance bond between the shell of a jam-nut type connector mounted on an erudited aluminum box and the box.  Cleaning the mating surfaces between the box and the connector with WD-40 proved to be the most effective method.  We were able to meet a specification of 2 mohms between the connector shell and the foot of the box as measured with a miliohmmeter.  This low resistance was maintained from the time the box was assembled until the box was finally shipped out the door, which might be several months later.
Other methods of cleaning the surfaces, such as with detergents, rubbing alcohol, or contact cleaners, were not nearly as effective.
When I use to work for Safety Devices, Inc., I used WD-40 as a contact cleaner when servicing blasting boxes that came in for repair or maintenance. Techjohn77 (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grounding and Bonding 

message: I assumed it was called WD40 because it's main ingredient was D40 (i.e dearomatised hydrocarbon blend with a flashpoint of 40 degree Celsius produced by e.g. Exxon and Shell). Their own Euro MSDS gives the principal ingredient as this (EINECS 919-857-5). I wonder if the "40th attempt" is just an embellishment to disguise the fact that the main active ingredient is simply a common refinery product? It's either that or an amazing coincidence. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 40 - 40th attempt? any third-party sources for the manufacturer's claim?

message: Just this evening I've read an online forum for at least the 2nd time someone claiming that WD-40 is somehow made from fish, fish oil, etc... Knowing the nature of the internet, this myth is probably pervasive, and there are probably variations on it.  At some point, it might be useful to list all the false internet rumors on what WD-40 is not, and has not been, in a sort of "snopes" style, the purpose of which is to then give something for people to quote in response when people make the "fish oil" assertion online.Jonny Quick (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disabuse Internet Myths: Not Fish Oil, etc... 

message: This article is a mash-up of product and company info.  Now that the WD-40 Co. has multiple products, it probably makes sense to create a company article, and replace the company infobox with the product infobox.Timtempleton (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly 3 years later, and I disagree.  Far too many pages in wikipedia have bifurcated endlessly for no apparent reason than some OCD need for partitioning.  Resisting such urges are usually best.  In this particular case (and IMO), the page isn't nearly unwieldy enough to warrant a split.  Like nearly all pages here, however, it could likely use a bit of a touching-up.Tgm1024 (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider splitting into two articles 

message: I noticed the can says "Not for sale in the state of California", what's up with this? I don't see it mentioned anywhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.230.96.9 (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not For Sale in California 

message: This article is blatant advertising. Yet anotehr example of how corrupt wikipedia is.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.94.183.188 (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: The current edit does not say what people use WD40 for. The Function section might be said to describe how it 'functions', but not what its day to day 'function' is.
"The long-term active ingredient is a non-volatile viscous oil which remains on the surface to which it is applied, giving lubrication and protection from moisture.[14] This oil is diluted with a volatile hydrocarbon to make a low viscosity fluid which can be aerosolized to penetrate crevices. The volatile hydrocarbon then evaporates, leaving behind the oil. A propellant (originally a low-molecular-weight hydrocarbon, now carbon dioxide) creates pressure in the can to force the liquid through the can's nozzle before evaporating.[14] The product is also sold in bulk as a liquid to industrial companies.[15]".
I am someone who had never heard of this product, and though I can just about gather from the rest of the article that it is probably used on car engines and the like, I can't be sure of that. An encyclopaedia entry should be a lot clearer. Liamcalling (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Function. 

message: Currently reads: "This outer skin also functioned as the outer wall of the missile's paper-thin fuel balloon tanks"
Although paper obviously comes in a variety of thickness, when "paper-thin" is invoked it generally refers to common printer or copier paper, whose thickness is about 0.1mm. 
Yet this source: http://www.warrenmuseum.com/atlas-sm-65/  says:
"Another interesting feature was the pressurized integral fuel tanks. The Convair designers adopted this technique to save weight. The huge tanks, which constituted 80 percent of the missile’s mass, were built from thin sheets of stainless steel, ranging between 0.1 and 0.4 inches thick."
So at minimum, the Atlas tank walls are 25 times thicker than paper.  Gwideman (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section hyperbole 

message: Why in hell it's advertised as silicon everywhere and yet here silicon is not specified not mentioned? In Russia we have analagous aerosoles that contain polydimethylsiloxane and hydrocarbon as propellant. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's not silicone! For silicone, WD-40 the company sells a separate product. Artoria2e5 🌉 09:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silicone 

message: Article says "The tank walls, just  to , were so fragile that, when empty, they had to be kept inflated with nitrogen to prevent them from collapsing.". I've removed this as it doesn't seem to be relevant to the discussion of WD-40. --82.68.17.41 (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed irrelevant sentence