Okay. I just got back from the store with 2 cans of spray lubricant and a bunch of Styrofoam cups in a sealed bag. (See the Re: Help identifying a component thread for more information)
Let's start a new thread on this called Spray Lubricant Tests. Tell me in that thread how I should proceed with the WD-40 in a cup test.
Don't do it on the carpet.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
That's what I tell my dogs.
John S expressed precisely :
Get rid of the WD40. It eats some stuff.
Surprisingly good for 'eating' aluminum, as in drilling, turning, milling, etc.
Tim
-- Seven Transistor Labs Electrical Engineering Consultation Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
Den torsdag den 4. september 2014 23.49.03 UTC+2 skrev Tim Williams:
for aluminium I use denatured ethanol. It's cheap, no residue and it works better
-Lasse
I would set several cups with different levels. Just a film at first, then increasing fluid levels. I would put them in a metal pan.
Greg
gregz wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.or g:
Cover some with foil + a rubber band to hold it down to retain the volatiles and simulate the situation where it has been sprayed under pressure into a pot or switch that is enclosed with only tiny openings to the exterior.
I once had to deal with a motherboard that sdome klutz had given the WD40 treatment to. Repeated localised solvent degreasing of the card slots, processor socket and DIMM sockets would result in a week or two's reliable operation, but sooner or later it always started crashing again. Didassembly + reassembly without degreasing did NOT restore reliable operation.
It ended up as a writeoff as the tank of solvent it would have contamininated to dip degrease is was more than the replacement cost and I didn't have access to a vapour phase degreaser.
My personal experiance leads me to believe that electronics grade contact cleaner lubricant spray are formulated without any undesirable additives that may cause surface leakage but WD40 is not and its use on any high impedance circuit is extremely unwise.
-- Ian Malcolm. London, ENGLAND. (NEWSGROUP REPLY PREFERRED) ianm[at]the[dash]malcolms[dot]freeserve[dot]co[dot]uk [at]=@, [dash]=- & [dot]=. *Warning* HTML & >32K emails --> NUL
Gooey blob that mixes : Petroleum Gooey blob that falls apart : Silicone
-- I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google because they host Usenet flooders.
Ha! I do the same, I just tried some one day for tapping some aluminium and found it worked very well. I never knew anyone else used it.
I use it in a spray bottle and just hope that it doesn't ignite.
** No doubt because it was showing an intermittent fault.
** Cos the board was faulty.
** What utter bollocks.
An ocean liner could sail though the giant holes in that idiotic story.
** Utterly absurd, paranoid thinking based on an obviously wrong analysis of a single irrelevant example.FYI:
WD40 has proven harmless for decades when used on valve audio equipment ( including valve pins and sockets etc ) - where ANY leakage current would be immediately obvious and even disastrous.
It's ability to restore operation to wet ignition systems is famous.
Shakes head....
.... Phil
It's ability to restore operation to wet ignition systems is infamous.....ask any experienced mechanic.
It works fine initially and then collects every piece of dust and crap until it becomes an electrically leaky quagmire.
I Imagine the same would happen with valve electronics.
** As you simply have NO experience on which to draw - you are guessing and imagining complete falsehoods.
Just like the other half baked, half-wit trolls here.
Piss off.
.... Phil
Interesting. Catching fire would not be good. But I'll give it a whirl next time I have to tap some Al.
George H.
Tubes are hot, and use stable phenolic plastic; modern PCBs are cool, use less-stable polymers, and have rubbery electrolytic seals, unremoved no-clean flux, and a variety of paints, varnishes and labels that were never tested in contact with WD-40's small residues.
I'lll continue to prefer "electronics" solvents, even the snake-oil-in-a-spray-can, for dirty switches and scratchy pots. And, I really miss Freon TF... and Blue Stuff... and carbon tet, for that matter.
A little alcohol fire wouldn't do much damage. Alcohol doesn't burn all that hot and you don't need a drum of it.
Well, yesterday at 13:30 CDT I put 1.2 ounces of the WD-40 into a Styrofoam cup. Today at 11:50 CDT, I measure 1.2 ounces.
However, there seems to be a film of the substance on the outside of the cup as if there has been some sort of osmosis. I touch it with my finger and it comes away oily.
Maybe I made a mistake confining the spray to the bottom of the cup. So, I got fresh cups and poured the solution into one of them. I will now wait until tomorrow and try to determine if there is any "osmosis" (leakage, seepage, if you prefer).
Gregz and Ian, I have not ignored your posts. I need some time to try them. Thanks.
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 12:02:07 -0500, John S Gave us:
It is also hygroscopic, so any losses incurred in the aromatics in it may well have been replaced by the same amount of water... and surface molecules from the cup as well.
Should use a glass crucible.
Oh... I use "Slick 50". Good stuff. NOT non-residual.
But, that was not the point. I can keep WD-40 in almost any container, but the question was whether or not Styrofoam (and some other materials) will be "eaten" by it. See the beginning of this thread, please.
The test is ongoing.
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 12:17:05 -0500, John S Gave us:
Even if they were "eaten", the cup would remain the same weight. Do the math.
ElectronDepot website 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.