The actual ingredients are literally on the safety data sheet: https://files.wd40.com/pdf/sds/mup/wd-40-multi-use-product-a...
The company can brag that their formulation has a special blend of herbs and spices, but someone who wants to can obviously make their own special formulation and say that theirs is secret too.
More importantly, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And there is nothing particularly special about WD-40's formulation anymore. WD-40 consistently performs worse than nearly any other available penetrating oil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUEob2oAKVs It's a terrible long term lubricant (because it's designed to evaporate, it actually concentrates gunk and grime).
WD-40 themselves have come out with improved "Specialist" formulations that mostly just copy other, superior products.
The people who use it are looking for cheap, mostly.
Source: farming. We have many different lubes and penetrating products for when we're in the actual shop, but in the field, nothing beats wd-40 for getting back to work fast, or unsticking some shit when all you have is a hammer and you just know when that fucking bolt comes loose it's going to throw rust and dirt all over your face.
(Yes, you can buy bulk wd-40 liquid and put into a branded or unbranded sprayer)
Clean motor oil is not actually that harmful if swallowed - it only carcinogenic because of all the metals and carbon it builds up when in the motor.
This is an oversimplification, in a way that is likely not obvious to a lot of people on this (software-focused) forum. An SDS does not have to list exact amounts, does not have to disclose some details of how an ingredient or mix of ingredients was processed, and (depending on jurisdiction) may not have to identify some "safe" ingredients at all. Some ingredients may be identified in relatively vague ways, that are sufficient for safety purposes but do not reveal the exact product. As the SDS you linked to says "The specific chemical identity and exact percentages are a trade secret". An SDS is certainly very helpful to reverse-engineering a product, but it doesn't tell you everything.
All that said, yes, the main strength of WD-40 is its marketing and ubiquity, and claims about its secrecy have more to do with marketing than anything practical.
Where I find this can be fun is that different countries seem to have different requirements for precision. Or just straight up different formulations for the same thing.
German wd40 says it’s all c9-c11 carbon chains:
https://smarthost.maedler.de/datenblaetter/EG_SIDA_WD40_EN.p...
US has a CARB and non-CARB formulation which are also different:
https://files.wd40.com/pdf/sds/mup/wd-40-multi-use-product-a...
https://files.wd40.com/msds/latam/GHS-SDS-WD-40-Multi-Use-Pr...
From the data sheet: "The specific chemical identity and exact percentages are a trade secret."
The petroleum base oils alone cover thousands of candidate chemicals.
And even if it were, the recipe was supposedly created by a guy in his shed after only 40 attempts with the technology available 70 years ago. The idea that an R&D team with an entire lab of equipment couldn't recreate or improve the formula if they wanted to in that time seems a bit far fetched.
The video’s test showed wd-40 worked slightly better than kroil and pb blaster, which all performed in the same range, being not much better than nothing. That’s particularly interesting because of how often kroil/pb come up as recommendations to use instead of wd…
Acetone+atf did better and liquid wrench penetrating fluid did the best, but *nothing* beats heat.
Regardless, the main problem with WD-40 is the popular misconception that it's a decent lubricant.
I recently read that WD40 isn't actually a lubricant but a lubricant remover. So as you write you'd use it to remove gunk but then follow it up with an actual lubricant.
On the last two bottles of WD40 I came across (im Germany) I checked the back and it indeed said that it's not a lubricant but a lubricant remover.
(Disclaimer: can't read the article past the intro where it does call it a lubricant...)
The only CAS number listed in that data sheet that doesn’t return Molecular Formula: Unspecified is carbon dioxide. The other 98% of the formulation is just sort of vague references to petroleum distillates.
- LVP Aliphatic Hydrocarbon (CAS #64742-47-8) 45-50%
- Petroleum Base Oil (CAS #64742-56-9, 65-0, 53-6, 54-7, 71-8) <35%
- Aliphatic Hydrocarbon (CAS #64742-47-8) 10 - <25%
- Carbon Dioxide (CAS #124-38-9) 2-3%
Note: The specific chemical identity and exact percentages are a trade secret.
> specific chemical identity
I wonder if it's just two hydrocarbons then? Odd that identify is singular.
Same deal here: there is value to having a product that stops squeaks, cleans rust and de-goo's gunk on the supermarket shelf. 70% of the time, snobbery is just snobbery. The world runs on Getting Stuff Done.
But yea, like Coke or McDonalds, the brand is probably worth far more than the secrecy of the recipe.
Difference being, they applied it every day, and specifically to prevent rust because the tools were wet. But man did they love it. Went through a couple cans per week I bet.
If I accidentally leave some pliers or my socket set out in the rain, I soak them with WD-40, scrub off the rust with a wire brush, and wipe off the excess with a towel. It does a decent job of preventing further damage. If I have some rusty parts sometimes I'll throw them in a glass jar, soak 'em with WD-40, shake them around, let them sit for a day or so, and then scrub them with a wire brush. Gets most of the rust off.
If you want a lubricant, just buy the correct one for the job. Silicone oil, lithium grease, graphite, all will do a better job in the long run than WD-40 if you use them in their intended role. My goto "universal lube" personally is "Super Lube", a PTFE-based lubricant which is NSF rated for incidental contact with food and dielectric.
The Carthusian monks who produce Chartreuse (a collection of herbal liqueurs popular for use in cocktails) have been producing it and protecting the secret 130 ingredient recipe for over 400 years successfully. At any given time no more than three of the monks hold the entire recipe, and yet they have a company they have formed to execute most of the production without the secret being leaked.
The designated monks coordinate production and are involved in QC, as well as developing new blends for special releases, but much production is done by paid employees who do not know the complete recipe.
Presumably the recipe relies on very unique and location-specific herbs to the alps. Part of the justification for limiting supply is concern for the environment and sustainability of their production. The order also had to cease production while they were evicted.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the key ingredients weren't wild foraged or at least very unique species.
One of the greatest use cases of security by obscurity, specially if part of the ingredients are decoys.
A few years ago I (not a specialist!) made lots of batches of OpenCola, which is based partly on the original Pemberton recipe, and it comes so close that nobody could realistically tell the difference. If anything, it tastes better, because I imagine Coke doesn't use fresh, expensive essential oils (like neroli) for everything.
The tricky piece that nobody else can do is the caffeine (edit: de-cocainized coca leaf extract) derived from coca leaves. Only Coke has the license to do this, and from what I gather, a tiny, tiny bit of the flavour does come from that.
I've not participated in Cola tasting, but assuming fresher tastes better isn't really a safe assumption. Lots of ingredients taste better or are better suited for recipies when they're aged. I've got pet chickens and their eggs are great, but you have to let them sit for many days if you want to hard boil them, and I'd guess baking with them may be tricky for sensitive recipies.
Anyway, even if it does taste better for whatever that means, that's not meeting the goal of tasting consistently the same as Coke, in whichever form. If you can't tell me if it's supposed to taste like Coke from a can, glass bottle, plastic bottle, or fountain, then you've told me all I need to know about how close you've replicated it.
And by fresh I do mean: The OpenCola is full of natural essential oils (orange, neroli, cinnamon, lime, lavender, lemon, nutmeg), and real natural flavor oils have a certain potent freshness you don't get in a mass-produced product.
Coca leaves contain various alkaloids, but not caffeine. Coca Cola gets its caffeine from (traditionally) kola nuts, and (today, presumedly) the usual industrial sources.
You write code for a certain part/spec that could go on a number of things (missle, airplane, etc). You dont know if your code will be used in a missile or not.
The mixing, again, spreading it out, have factory A mix ingredients x, y, and z, factory B mix ingredients Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and factory C mix factory A and B's mixtures.
Perfectly Replicating Coca Cola (It Took Me A Year) by LabCoatz https://youtu.be/TDkH3EbWTYc
He did find a pretty good substitute for the primary cocoa leaf ingredient though. Also, what he made was virtually indistinguishable in the taste tests. One person said that his tasted closer to the 2L of coke than the can of coke did, which suggests the final bit could just be carbonation level of the soda stream.
My theory was that the carbonation was perfect and the product was fresher, as the bottler requires rabbinical supervision and they probably make it for a limited run.
Which tastes different from pure fructose. If you want to taste them side by side, you can absolutely tell the difference. (If you've done any endurance sports, you know what I mean.)
Once digested I agree that the health effects are suspect. But tastewise, fructose, sucrose and glucose are distinct.
Are you perhaps thinking that "high fructose corn syrup" is predominantly fructose? The name is confusing, but it actually means that it is high in fructose relative to normal corn syrup, not that fructose predominates. HFCS is usually pretty close to 50:50 fructose to glucose, just like sucrose is:
How much fructose is in HFCS?
The most common forms of HFCS contain either 42 percent or 55 percent fructose, as described in the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR 184.1866), and these are referred to in the industry as HFCS 42 and HFCS 55. The rest of the HFCS is glucose and water. HFCS 42 is mainly used in processed foods, cereals, baked goods, and some beverages. HFCS 55 is used primarily in soft drinks.
https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/high-fruct...
While you can measure the difference between 55:45 and 50:50, I'm doubtful the taste difference is much.
Reality is you’d want to make something with similar physical characteristics and call it a day. Kinda like how we don’t bother with hplc on gasoline, you just fill your car with something that meets the specs and get on with life
But yes, I strongly suspect a motivated party could use analytical chemistry to work it out.
Not worth much.
Can't read the paywalled article, but Water Displacement formula 40 seemed to be the best of the formulas for being a lubricant.
But I'd still never pay for it.
Canola oil works in practice for basic tasks, but requires routine reapplication.
> Canola oil works super well in practice without any of these risks.
I cannot advise enough against using canola oil for most lubrication purposes. It's biodegradable and will break down (good for some applications) but for the most part oil breaking down is a bad thing if you want to keep something well maintained. It would gum up over time, start reacting chemically with dust or other chemicals, and potentially even cause damage. Especially if you lubricate to prevent rust.
Also, in the context of breaking loose bolts, oil alone doesn't have any capacity to break up or penetrate rust.
Spray on white lithium grease works for most "architectural" or furniture uses (ex: door hinges, gas springs on chairs, garage door rails and chain, etc).
For anything constantly moving (ex: gearboxes or bearings) you want a more viscous lithium grease (ex: red n tacky or lucas xtra/green).
But in pretty much every situation (on land) you want to be using a form of lithium grease if you want to actually keep the interface lubricated.
From childhood experience, thinking all oils were the same, absolutely not. It goes rancid and gums up after some time.
I've long thought that every restaurant/bakery/etc could publish their full internal cookbooks and not see a drop in sales. People don't buy it because they are incapable (or think they are) of making something, they do it because it's faster, they don't have all the ingredients, they don't have the time, they don't have the skill, the list goes on. I bet I could give the instructions, the equipment, and the ingredients to people and they'd still choose to buy it. Sure, you might lose a tiny bit of sales to "home bakers" [0] but I think it'd be eclipsed by people that saw/read/heard about the cookbook (maybe never even saw it) and that was enough "marketing" to get them in the door.
I've always found "secret knowledge" to be a little silly. A sort of, security through obscurity. Knowing a recipe doesn't make you special, being able to build/run a company around it and make it consistently good does.
[0] I love to cook, I sometimes like making copy-cat recipes. I cannot think of a copy-cat recipe that I made more than 2-3 times. While it's fun to do, it's never exactly the same, and I also believe that "food tastes better when someone else makes it". Also it can sometimes be just-as or more expensive to make some food items due to needing a bunch of ingredients that they don't sell in exactly the quantity the recipe calls for.
Makes me think of all those stories[0] employing a "secret recipe" plot. Some baking/cooking recipe (or a whole cookbook), written down by grandma and passed down in the family, or such, is critical to the fate of a bakery/restaurant/Thanksgiving dinner/etc.; predictably, it gets stolen, and suddenly the meal everyone loves cannot be made anymore.
It's a dumb idea if you think about it for more than a second - even the worst home cook will naturally memorize all the ingredients and steps after using the recipe more than couple times. If the process involves more than one person, there's bound to be copies and derivative documents (e.g. shopping lists) around, too. Recipes are good checklists and are particularly helpful when onboarding new cooks, but losing an actively used one isn't a big deal - it can be recreated on the spot by those who already know it by heart.
--
[0] - One I've watched recently was Hoodwinked! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoodwinked!. Great movie, but out of all the absurdities in it, by far the biggest one was the whole "stealing recipes to put bakeries out of business" plot driver.
Absolutely. Chad Robertson of Tartine bakery has written books detailing how to make their breads and pastries. Still lines out the door.
I think it’s okay to share the gift link as canonical. It’s the usual practice of sharing articles from LWN here, for example.
Relevant video on someone reverse engineering the formula for coca cola
Fuck me, these people get paid millions just for existing and they don’t have a clue what they’re doing.
Unless they have own refining facility, and it is more like a recipe of temperatures/pressures.
The whole point of “the 40th formula” and this nonsense is fooling customers to keep buying a commodity
In other news, WD-40 is not a lubricant.
That makes it the "best" for a lot of "anything works" applications.
oh right, it also seems to leave a gummy residue, which is really not great for machine tools
Not the parent comment, but sometimes comments are so outrageous it makes me laugh.
Like what else do you even want at that point?
Source that you can put gas in your car? That pop tarts are food? Like yes, it's advertised as food, I can tell it's food, I've eaten it - but where is your source for it being food other than all that?
https://www.wd40.com/myths-legends-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.
How does the author of that fun facts page know this for sure? I just heard that only executives get to see the ingredient list. Is this fun fact author an executive?
Anyone who actually use wd40 will eventually notice it not only has poor ability to stick around under load, but also likes to oxidize, forming a varnish or horrible goo depending on how thick it was left on. While this doesn’t matter (or is even desirable) for loosening a bolt, it’s a poor choice on tools, hinges, etc.
If long term lubrication is needed, then people should just use an appropriate grease or a non-oxidating* oil meant for staying around and lubricating.
*Plant based oils generally contain high amounts of polyunsaturated fats, which love to oxidize. Great for seasoning cast iron, but bad for other things. The goo/lacquer you get on kitchen pans and around the oven is oxidized fats linking together. There are rare exceptions to plant based oils being a bad idea for lubrication, involving genetic modification to produce mostly monounsaturated fats and further processing, like with alg’s “go juice”.
See their old school ad campaign
> Do you have tight nuts or a rusty tool? [0]
[0] https://thedutchluthier.wordpress.com/2016/09/13/tight-nuts-...
It also makes a superb bug killer, especially in combination with a barbecue lighter.