Talk:Starting fluid

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Plenty can be added: when invented, other uses, alternatives to starting fluid, etc.

I agree, the article can definitley be expanded. I just attempted to clean up the last paragraph dealing with the use of starter fluid as an inhalent(which might not even belong in this article at all.)WacoJacko (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dangers of starting fluid[edit]

why would you remove information about getting "etherized" and using starting fluid as an inhalant? theres already not enough information about it. i came on here because i was forced to use starting fluid and now i feel sick from breathing the fumes, and im trying to find out how much brain damage this stuff causes, and theres no information on it. and wikipedia rates this article as being low importance? so its not important to know about how toxic and dangerous a chemical that you can buy at almost any store in america is? give me a break, its very important and this article needs more information about the toxicity and dangers of inhaling the chemicals in this stuff whether its accidental or on purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 10:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Starting fluid/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The sticker on my 1999 Chevy Tahoe says not to use Starting Fluid on diesel engines as immediate and sever engine damage may occur.

Last edited at 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Spray1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propulsive?[edit]

 ". WD-40 was previously recommended for use on two stroke engines because it has lubricating qualities,[6] but the formulation with non-flammable CO2 as propellant instead of propane no longer has the same propulsive effect. "

What does the propulsive effect have to do with anything? the propulsive effect is the force with which it forces the substance out of the can, hence propellant. This essentially says WD40 is no longer recommended because the spray doesn't come out with enough force now, which is nonsense. If the propellant was propane before it was changed to CO2, then it was the flammability of the propane that was causing the engine to run in place of ether fumes. Without the propane it won't work as starter fluid. Neither one has anything to do with 2-stroke engines in any case. It worked on 2 strokes before because it was both flammable (propane) and lubricated the engine (the WD40 itself). Now that they started using CO2 instead it won't work as starter fluid at ALL, on ANY type of engine. it will still lubricate the engine just fine, it is just useless to start it with. I don't see how anyone could write the above and think it made sense. How can they think propulsion or ignition has any relation to the lubricating qualities of the substance? If they mistook propulsive to mean the force with which it propels the piston down when it ignites, it still has no relation to the lubrication of the engine. If they actually meant WD40 has "wimpy" propulsion now, well, you were never spraying the stuff into the cylinder to start with, just into the intake, where it is sucked into the engine, so the "propulsive effect" has no bearing on whether it will lubricate a 2-stroke. If it can propel it a few inches, that is all it needs to do.

64.223.159.241 (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]