Talk:WD-40

Older comments

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)

Anybody know what WD-40 is made of, and how it works? 82.18.42.151 17:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Cocaine?

WD-40 is apparently effective against cocaine according to BBC ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4566526.stm )

Name?

Does anyone have any deffinative evidence of what WD40 stands for, as i have always beleved that it stood for WarDept #40 - This backed up by both of my grandparents, both of which remember the war, one also being an engineer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.125.1.112 (talk • contribs) .

Until you do have evidence, please do not add this to the article. -SCEhardT 20:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Snopes quotes the company as saying it stands for Water Displacement, 40th Attempt.[1]

WD-40 literally stands for Water Displacement, 40th attempt. That's the name straight out of the lab book used by the chemist who developed WD-40 back in 1953. The chemist, Norm Larsen, was attempting to concoct a formula to prevent corrosion — a task which is done by displacing water. Norm's persistence paid off when he perfected the formula on his 40th try.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.101.59.18 (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Whats in it?

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)

Insecticide

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)

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)

Possible External Link for Article

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)

Tone tag

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)

Caramba

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).

Questionable content

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)

The meaning of WD-40 and the story of its inventor - Norman B. Larsen

My father, Norman B. Larsen, invented WD-40. He was looking for a formula to prevent moisture in Atlas rockets, which were having a problem with moisture, and blowing up because of it. A self-taught chemist with a background in the paint business, he came up with the idea of a water displacer. Norm was a high school graduate, everything he knew he learned by reading books. His collection of antique chemistry books from the 18th and 19th century still survives today. When he died he had over a thousand books in his personal library.

WD stands for Water Displacement, and it was his 40th try at a formula, therefore, WD-40. When he sold WD-40 and Rocket Chemical in the mid-fifties for $10,000.(no royalties, no residuals as he believed he would always be able to invent something better), Norm went to work for CRC as their head chemist (which would explain why their 5.56 formula is almost as good as WD-40).

He started his own company and consulting firm a few years later outside Philadelphia, and designed metal and wood preservation techniques for treasure hunter Mel Fisher, explorer Fred Dickinson of the Santa Maria Foundation, the Smithsonian Institute, and the Marine Corps, where he came up with a pellet pack that was very useful in helping solve the gun jamming problem during the Viet Nam war.

He died in December of 1970 at the young age of 46, never realizing his dream of creating a product better than WD-40 for worldwide distribution. He did create a product called Free N' Kleen which actually was better that WD-40 or CRC, but a few years after his death the company went out of business, and the formula was lost.

Norman B. Larsen is one of the unsung heroes of the chemical world. Regarding the safety of the product, my three brothers, mother, and I grew up with the smell of WD-40, CRC, and Free N' Kleen permeating our home and life. None of us are in any way sick from exposure to the chemicals he had all around us, and my eighty year old mom still works every day.

Also - do not use WD-40 on computer, electrical or mechanical parts. We learned this when I was in tech school studying electronics.

130.13.10.106 21:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Terri Larsen-Shifman

This has to be some kind of urban legend. The first Atlas flew in mid '57, and the Convair contract to build it only came in 1955. In 1953 the Atlas didn't exist, nor anything close to an early prototype. A much bigger rocket was proposed around then, but never got off the drawing-board. The closest precursor containing significant elements of the Atlas design is found in the experimental MX 744 missile, and that would be around that time. However, it was built of aluminum, not steel, and wouldn't need any protective coating. Aluminum is famously self-protecting, forming a layer of oxide from the ambient air.

There is a complete list of successful and unsuccessful early Atlas launches at and after the first ('57) test launch and a description of the root cause of failure, none of them corresponding to the problem you describe. I would conjecture that WD-40's actual purpose was classified and the Atlas story was concocted later as a cover. JohndanR (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)JohndanR (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

History? Myths?

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))

Photograph

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)

Done. --Bucklesman 18:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

German formula totally different to the other one?

The article quotes two entirely different formulations. Is that correct? --David Broadfoot (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

other uses

^{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)

Sounds more like voodoo than medicine. --EvaK (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WD-40 being a dielectric

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)

ELECTRICAL Dielectric strength ASTM D-877 38,000 V. per 2.5mm. Source = Techical Data Sheet https://cdn.wd40company.eu/wd-40/en-GB/uploads/2018/02/08134645/Multi-Use-Product-Aerosol.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.73.210.83 (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Use in Firearms Maintenance

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)

Freezing statement removed

"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)

Stoddard Solvent

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)

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)

See Also

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)

not a good lubricant

You state "The long term active ingredient is a non-volatile, viscous oil which remains on the surface, providing lubrication" This is wrong. WD 40 while it has many uses it is not a lubricant. When used it should be followed by a good lubricant. Every time i see a grocery cart with squeaky wheel I think of WD 40 and the times i've used it as a lubricant. The lubricating it provides has a very short life. The parts dry out and and begin to wear. I once used it on a automobile hood latch. After a period of time the latch froze at speed the hood flew up and off the car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 16:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Since we're comparing anecdotal evidences, my experience with the wonderful WD40 product is the opposite of yours. Hanxu9 (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Arydberg is correct. WD40 is a cleaner, not lubricant. I lubricated doors and two bicycle chain with it, and all of them started to squeak after some time. It is NOT a lubricant. 85.197.54.246 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

And BOTH of you are dead wrong: It IS a lubricant! WD40.com addresses this in their myths page found here WD-40 Myths and Fun Facts:

Myth: WD-40® Multi-Use Product is not really a lubricant.

Fact: While the “W-D” in WD-40® stands for Water Displacement, WD-40® Multi-Use Product is a unique, special blend of lubricants. The product’s formulation also contains anti-corrosion agents and ingredients for penetration, water displacement and soil removal.

The simple fact of the matter is that not only is WD40 a lubricant, but it's always been a lubricant. Stop simply repeating what someone else told you and spend some time going to the source.Tgm1024 (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That it has "always been a lubricant" is self-contradicted by the claim that its original use was as a protective coating for the original Atlas missile. This is a spurious company claim on its own, as the first Atlas test-articles didn't arrive until 1954 and the contract to fully build them came a year later. The first launches were in '57. Around 1953 there was the MX 744 missile, but it wasn't made of steel but of aluminum, which of course forms its own protective oxidation coating.JohndanR (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Let us not forget that the source is strongly biased. You are correct, TGM1024, as is the website, in that WD-40 contains lubricant ingredients. The lubricants are basically mineral oil (analysis of the formula was performed by Wired magazine) and are (as stated in the page and quoted by OP) highly viscous. This is appropriate for some uses, and, as OP also rightly said, are "not a good lubricant" for other uses - in which case as OP also rightly said, should be used as a cleaner, solvent and initial lubricator (its intended usage) it should be followed by a good (less viscous or otherwise more appropriate) lubricant.

The reason you're all arguing is that you've missed the point here. "Good" is subjective. While the viscous oils in WD-40 are "good" for some things, they are not "good" for others. This is why good bike mechanics (to use the reference above) do not rely on it for chain lubrication (as the high viscosity of the oil, combined with high centrifugal and gravitational forces, result in its displacement from the moving parts of the chain) and why it is not appropriate for door hinges (as again, the high viscosity combined with pressure and movement under force of gravity because door hinges are generally vertically aligned, eventuate in displacement of the oils from the moving parts of the hinge (and will eventually, by the way, eventuate in those same oils dripping from the bottom of the hinge and staining the door frame).

This brings me back to the opening statement in my edit - that the website is biased. One can certainly use WD-40 as a lubricant for bike chains, door hinges etc, and the website directly suggests exactly these uses. However, it is not the most appropriate lubricant for the task as it will require constant cleaning from its position of dispersal and re-application, as the oils disperse from the surfaces being lubricated. Constant re-application of the product is good for the vendor as it requires constant re-purchasing. Just because the person selling you the product tells you that it is good, does not make it true. You are right that we should go to the source, but they are the source of the product and not the source of the knowledge of the product (in fact they kept that "special bland of lubricants" you quoted, a trade secret. The sources in this case, are our existing knowledge of lubricant properties and appropriate use-cases, and the results of the chemical analysis of the "special blend of lubricants" to which we can now apply that knowledge. Many who have used the product have observed the high-viscosity nature of the "special blend of lubricants" and/or their often negative effects when inappropriately relied upon as a primary source of lubrication (such as bike chains which run like a dream then start to squeak, skateboard bearings, hood latches, etc) and the viscosity of the oils are easily demonstrated through many means. While many professionals have made such "anecdotal" observations, they are in fact true as observed through non-anecdotal means. The "source" here is not the marketing website for a product for sale, nor are the "anecdotes" void or even false. The source in this case is material science and it indicates that WD-40 is a lubricant and often, due to its high viscosity, it is not a good one. OP is right. Sometimes. You are right, sometimes. You are both wrong, sometimes. TL;DR it depends, and I will edit the page to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.139.159 (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC) Apologies for the inability to edit the above post after realising I had written high-viscosity rather than low-viscosity every time. Brainfart, sorry. I notice from the page edit history, that several times, the discussion of use of appropriate oils has been added and removed from this section. Marketing material used as a source which gives an incomplete and misleading description of the behaviour of the materials ("remains on the surface", implying it will remain permanently) should not be used as an excuse to remove known material science data heavily referenced on both this and other wikipedia pages which prove that it may not remain on the surface under certain conditions. By all means please feel free to remove or edit my edit, but something needs to be left there to clarify the misleading wording in the earlier part of the section, otherwise it's just marketing and this page is not an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.139.159 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Photo with bicycle

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)

Having worked as a true professional motorcycle, race-car and general mechanic, before becoming a degreed aerospace engineer, I would dismiss any statement a pedal-bike tech makes without seeing substantial supportive evidence; they are NOT professional mechanics and seem to live in a quasi-fantasy state. By the way: CLEAR the ROAD paperboy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.62.113 (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

Too many photos ..

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)

Composition

"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)

As I just learned in (M.Sc.-level) chemisty class (where we were discussing the contaminants found in a stream after it passed through a paint factory), it is near impossible to identify the different compounds of a chemically complex substance from scratch. You won't get more information than what is already on this page. 77.8.172.115 (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

MIL-C-81309

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)

If you run across an early retail can of WD-40 it has a mil-spec on it and I've used MIL-c-81309D/E/F while in the USAF as an aircraft mechanic. The cans we had said WD-40 in big letters and MIL-C-81309D, E or F depending on the variant on them in slightly smaller print. History's Mysteries TV series did a segment on the inventor and WD-40 stating the original development was for NASA and the USAF for corrosion control on missiles and rockets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retiredcrewdog (talk • contribs) 17:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Retiredcrewdog. I am hesitant to add a discussion of the WD-40 / MIL-C-81309 link to the article without evidence so if anyone has a photo of a WD-40 can with the MILSPEC on the label, it would be great to add this to the article, especially for those of us who spent numerous hours wiping down aircraft skin with 81309. Ray Trygstad (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Grounding and Bonding

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) John Anderson February 5, 2013

40 - 40th attempt? any third-party sources for the manufacturer's claim?

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)

Disabuse Internet Myths: Not Fish Oil, etc...

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)

Consider splitting into two articles

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)

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)

Not For Sale in California

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)

This disclaimer is most likely due to California's "Proposition 65" legislation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.132.34.10 (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Advertising

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)

Function.

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)

my favorite beverage 100.6.84.237 (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

History section hyperbole

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)

Silicone

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)

Because it's not silicone! For silicone, WD-40 the company sells a separate product. Artoria2e5 🌉 09:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant sentence

Article says "The tank walls, just 0.1 inches (2.5 mm) to 0.4 inches (10 mm), 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)

References