Oiling Old Mechanisms

[PsychMan]

Regular 3 in 1 seems to dry out quite quickly, I use this stuff for all sorts, but
Its great for electric motor bearings and the like

https://www.amazon.co.uk/3-IN-ONE-Mo.../dp/B00065VGUC

When something very light is needed I tend to use sewing machine oil.

I reserve Wd40 and regular 3 in 1 for cleaning, or non critical applications, padlocks etc

[alanworland]

I used to be a 3 in 1 user but didn't consider it a long term solution so I have been using a fully synthetic engine oil of 5 - 30 grade which I apply to intricate areas with an ink cartridge refiller which has a 'blunt' needle on.
Seems to last well as a lubricant.

Alan

[Alistair D]

Just as point of note the 'blunt' needles referred to are actually called dispensing needles and are commonly available.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lab-Dispens...ode=6284935031

Al

[Bazz4CQJ]

I once spent an evening testing a whole range of lubricants and solvents in regard to how they spread out over a sheet of rusty metal. I just happen to have a syringe in my tool drawer which will accurately dispense volumes of as little as 2 microlitres (about the same volume as the head of a pin). I think I started out with WD40, then Plusgas, then 3in1 then some fuel injector cleaner, then some acetone/ATF mixture, etc etc.

Applying a single droplet of 2uL, the result that I recall most strongly is that some fluids very rapidly spread out, being "wicked up" by the rust layer, while other fluids were much slower to spread. However, the fast ones did not necessarily spread very far, but some of the slow ones just kept on spreading and eventually spread further than the slow ones (yes, evaporation could come in to play).

That seemed to suggest that when needing any of these as releasing agents, then if you only had 10 minutes, Product A might be best but if you could leave it 24 hours, Product B might be best.

I did have intentions to do some more tests, using a better test set up and better controls of conditions but I've never got around to it .

I pick up WD40 and Plusgas from my garage shelf pretty much at random; perhaps I should get back to my tests?

B

[paulsherwin]

I do find PlusGas is significantly better than WD40 as a dismantling fluid, hardly surprising as that's what it's supposed to be for, but either will do in many cases. As I said earlier, WD40 is mostly white spirit, which is of course very much cheaper than both.

There are various recipes for homemade dismantling fluid on the net if you google. Most of them seem to include diesel amongst other things.

[Bazz4CQJ]

Originally Posted by paulsherwin

I do find PlusGas is significantly better than WD40 as a dismantling fluid, .

PlusGas exists as a simple liquid in the container but WD40 consists of two liquid phases; it really needs to be shaken hard to get a good emulsion. I sometimes wonder if some people don't shake it well and consequently get poor performance.

My understanding is that the lighter phase of WD40 consists of chemical which is good at creeping and is a "pathfinder" for the heavier phase which is more of a lubricant. I suspect that the WD40 on sale today is not the same as the product that came on the market in the mid-70's, and of course, they have brought out their range of 'specialist' products which includes a contact cleaner and a PTFE-based lubricant.

People who don't rate WD40 always rant on about the original product being primarily a water dispersant.... so what? People who don't rate PlusGas say it's little more than kerosene.

Probably the most famous homebrew is the acetone/ATF mixture (automatic transmission fluid) which I think came to fame in the US mag 'Popular Mechanics'. My experience with that mixture is wholly negative.

It's worth noting that for less than £300, you could get a full chemical analysis (gas chromatography / mass spectroscopy) of them, and you have to assume that each of the major makers has files on their competitors. There are no laws against analysing your competitors products!

B

[ColinTheAmpMan1]

Originally Posted by Bazz4CQJ

It's worth noting that for less than £300, you could get a full chemical analysis (gas chromatography / mass spectroscopy) of them, and you have to assume that each of the major makers has files on their competitors. There are no laws against analysing your competitors products!

B

Sorry to wear my pedant-hat again, but I feel that I should point out that while GC/MS can give a lot of information, it is not really a full chemical analysis. I could explain why, since I undertook to do GC/MS some years ago, but I would probably bore everyone to death as well as it being off-topic.

Colin.

[Bazz4CQJ]

If we limit the discussion to WD40 and PlusGas, what do you believe GC/MS would fail to detect?

B

[paulsherwin]

Very brief summary explanation please Colin, this thread is drifting off topic.

[emeritus]

The lubricants specified in the official Philips service manual for my late 1970''s cassette deck are 20W50 engine oil for the axles and ordinary lithium based bearing grease for the gears and sliding parts.

[paulsherwin]

I do use 20/50 for slow moving bearings where a relatively high viscosity oil is needed, but some people don't like it because of the additives.

[ex seismic]

I tried the acetone/ATF mix as I read it was an excellent releasing agent. The only ATF I had available did not mix at all with the acetone but just stayed as little globules. Can anyone recommend the mix as effective and if so what brand of ATF?

[Andrew Sinclair]

Is synthetic car engine oil less likely to oxidise or go gummy than mineral oil such as 20W50?

[paulsherwin]

Yes, fully synthetic is very stable, but it still has lots of additives. I would happily use it if I had any though.

[emeritus]

The lubricants didn't appear to have caused problems with my 40 year old plus deck. It had failed due to stripped teeth on an idler gear made of a type of yellow plastic that from various forum posts seems prone to disintegration . The other gears made from different plastics were all OK.

[ColinTheAmpMan1]

Originally Posted by paulsherwin

Very brief summary explanation please Colin, this thread is drifting off topic.

It is not so much what I think GC/MS might fail to detect, as what the technique is incapable of detecting and what might be there in small quantities. The analyte needs to be diluted with a solvent (you can't just bang loads of stuff onto the GC column - it will be overloaded), which just could be a component of the mixture anyway.

You need to know two properties of the materials you are trying to detect:
-the GC retention-time using the adsorbent that the column is made from, and
-the mass spectrum of that material.

It is always possible that some component(s) will not ionise under the conditions within the mass-spectrometer ion source, too.

It is not uncommon for analytes that are to be subjected to GC/MS are cleaned-up prior to analysis in order to remove materials that might confuse the results or compromise the process in some way.

Without a much better knowledge of the analysis of lubricants (there may be others on this Forum with such experience in depth), I cannot say for certain a that there is viable protocol, or under what conditions it could work comprehensively. That is why I'm saying that GC/MS is not always going to solve all the organic analysis problems that one might think of.

Colin.

[G6Tanuki]

For lubricating tuning-gear trains (AR88 gearboxes!) I use the semi-fluid moly-grease intended for car constant-velocity-joints.

Being semi-fluid, it doesn't stick-together the paired gears/segments in the way ordinary thick greases do, so it allows the anti-backlash springs between the segments to do the necessary to keep the gears tightly in-mesh. It also doesn't 'creep' anywhere as badly as thinner oils do.

[Bazz4CQJ]

Originally Posted by ColinTheAmpMan1

A)The analyte needs to be diluted with a solvent

B)That is why I'm saying that GC/MS is not always going to solve all the organic analysis problems that one might think of.

Colin.

Reference point A - I know and have worked with over the last ~30 years (and can refer anyone who wants to know) analytes which do not need to be diluted; I cannot think of any that do. Do please tell us what they are.

Reference point B- I never said that GC/MS could solve all the problems one might think of .You are attempting to mislead.

My underlying point; if there are exceptional products out there, it would not cost any great amount of money to find out what they are composed of, and then they would be copied - just like many of you experience everyday with electronic components.

As Wrangler says, there is nothing so valueless that someone will not copy it

B

[mark_in_manc]

(Errr...if I might butt in to pick up the points on castor oil mentioned up-thread - I was given some for an automotive purpose but never used it as it goes gummy when mixed with mineral oils. But I kept it, like you do, and much later found out it is highly regarded as a rubber lubricant, as it does not degrade rubber like mineral oils tend to, nor does it contain salts which rust steel components like washing up liquid. Yes, I use it to put tyres on, but you might find a rubber-radio-purpose for it one day).

[russell_w_b]

Lighter fuel (naphtha) is very popular amongst vintage camera enthusiasts for shutters and their mechanisms, and I understand that if WD40 is sprayed into a film canister or similar, it separates over a few days into two components: a gungy, heavy bottom layer and a fine solvent top layer which may be used sparingly. I have never tried this.