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
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
On Oct 16, 3:19 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
re: 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.
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.
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.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:19:37 -0400, email@example.com wrote:
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
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.
Sez you. How many times do you have to be wrong in a day before you
reach your quota, and go back to sleep?
I have been consistent. " It is a poor lubricant."
No, that's your quibble.
OK. Name the applications where a real lubricant wouldn't be
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.
Now you are imagining things. Please quote me on your claim above.
It's common knowledge that WD-40 leaves this film.
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
Put that gummy wax substance on ways and it becomes glue.
But Paraffin IS a lubricant:
Of course the purists use beeswax - it is all-natural and more ecologically
friendly that Paraffin.
I never said it or WD-40 doesn't lubricate. I said it is a poor
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
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
that WD-40 or Vegetable oil can't come close to?
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:51:51 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
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
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
WD-40 is about 1/3 petroleum OIL. Granted it is a light oil, but an
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?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.