If it wasn't eminently obvious, most of these "secrecy" programs are marketing fluff.
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.
WD-40's advantage is that it's not terrible to get on your skin when you're out working, and it's cheap.
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.
> WD-40 consistently performs worse than nearly any other available penetrating oil.
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.
I've had good luck with acetone+atf but I am surprised Kroil and PB Blaster didn't perform better as I have had lots of good experiences with both.
Regardless, the main problem with WD-40 is the popular misconception that it's a decent lubricant.
> It's a terrible long term lubricant (because it's designed to evaporate, it actually concentrates gunk and grime).
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...)
Yes, it's more correctly labelled as a solvent. Part of their marketing secret is that their product is inherently "addictive" in a way - it can loosen up things quickly but also make them seize more quickly. Which gives users a sense that they constantly need to re-apply WD-40 when most of what you are doing is cleaning up the mess of the previous application.
I'd be very interested to know how they produce it if the formula is so tightly held. At some point people need to be purchasing the ingredients and mixing them together.
It's possible to separate out these tasks such that no single person or group has every needed piece of the puzzle.
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.
I suspect though that a lot of the secret behind Chartreuse isn't just the recipe, but the actual sourcing of the ingredients.
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.
You could say the same about cryptographic signatures where each party only knows a part of the key, yet those all work fine. You could probably piece together the formula by a sum of some employees and some external suppliers if everyone broke their NDA, but if people keep their word, your factories could just as well see shipments of "Ingredient A" and the worker only knows how much to add to each batch.
Real life ain't abstract math. You have MSDS 'mulmen mentioned, but I also can't imagine any factory being able to just mix shipments of ingredients "A", "B", "C", etc. without the actual content being documented on purchase orders, OSHA reviews, etc. You may want to operate in secret, but at the very least, the taxman really wants to know if you aren't skimping on your dues, so there should be plenty of relevant documents in circulation.
I wonder how much information leaks through something like Material Safety Data Sheets.
Exactly what I was thinking. I mean how can you produce something, esp. in bulk, when the exact ingredients and quantities aren't known? Assuming it is made in a typical factory, the machines would have to be programmed and that would typically mean someone has to know. I wonder if they split the knowledge over several different groups so a group only knows a single piece? Hmm....
This is how they do it. There was a documentary about coca-cola and they explained that they completely separated the supply pipeline. Operators manipulate unlabelled sources coming from separate parts of the company.
It's a myth that Coca-Cola is a closely held secret, though. Any food flavoring specialist can reconstruct the flavor of Coke almost exactly.
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.
> If anything, it tastes better, because I imagine Coke doesn't use fresh, expensive essential oils (like neroli) for everything.
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.
I think my point flew past you: If I can make a 99% clone of Coke in my kitchen, any professional flavoring pro will do it 100%. The supposed secret recipe isn't why Coke is still around, it's the brand.
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.
> caffeine derived from coca leaves
Coca leaves contain various alkaloids, but not caffeine. Coca Cola gets its caffeine from (traditionally) kola nuts, and (today, presumedly) the usual industrial sources.
Not sure what happens with my brain there. I did indeed mean de-cocainized coca leaves.
Ive heard from others that this is how defense software engineering goes.
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.
A fairly obvious solution (IMO) would be to have multiple people buying the ingredients, some even buying unused ingredients. That would cover purchasing.
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.
WD-40 works great for its intended purpose. The problem is that they've marketed it the way that the dad from My Big Fat Greek Wedding raves about Windex. It's not a good lubricant, as many people have noted, as it evaporates and concentrates contaminants. It's not a good protective coating because again, it evaporates. What it is good at is drying off metal parts, and as a mediocre and cheap rust remover.
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.
WD-40 is not really that great at anything, people buy the brand name, that's it. The formule being public probably wouldn't change much
It or its variants probably contains PFAS which probably makes it hazardous to spray. Also, I suspect that breathing its ambient vapor while spraying it is is bad for the body and brain.
Canola oil works in practice for basic tasks, but requires routine reapplication.
Do not use canola oil for most lubrication tasks. You should almost always be using lithium grease.
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.
Thanks. Is that better than silicone?
It is, but it also stains forever anything it touches.
WD-40 classic does not contain PFAS. Which is not to say you should breath it in.
> 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.
Couldn't WD-40's formula be reverse engineered using analytical chemical techniques? GC-MS, NMR, etc.
The guy on YouTube who just recreated the formula of Coca-Cola with HPLC & etc should take a crack at it
Perfectly Replicating Coca Cola (It Took Me A Year) by LabCoatz https://youtu.be/TDkH3EbWTYc
Instructions unclear. Taste-tested WD40.
It smells so fucking good though, don't you think? You almost want to taste it.
The title is clickbait though, he admits near the end it is not in fact a perfect replication. I could feel this of course, long before even starting to watch it. Still, upsetting because otherwise it’s an entertaining video.
The main ingredient he is missing is coca leaf. I used to buy Mate de Coca tea from Peru/Boliva no problem. It's a decocanized coca leaf tea. Shame he didn't hunt around or try harder to get it.
He said his first order of decocanised cocoa leaf was seized at the border. I can see that discouraging trying again, esp when he's trying to make something others could reproduce.
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.
That was our theory in the office when we taste tested the various cokes. The favorite by far was kosher for Passover coke. At first we thought it was the sugar vs. HFCS, but bottled Mexican coke didn’t fare as well — blind most people thought Coke Zero (which is my favorite coke) was Mexican Coke.
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.
Sorta, it’s a mix of mixtures of molecules so you also need to consider the makeup of whatever compound it’s made with (but it’s probably something dumb like kerosene).
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
kerosene
The components are on the MSDS (albeit only the CAS codes not the specific chemical), only the percentages seem to be a trade secret? Basically a light carrier oil mixed with kerosene-esque solvent. I almost feel the secrecy is part of the marketing ploy, since w-40 in particular isn't the "best" tool for any job (there are better standalone degreasers and penetrating lubricants). No one who cares enough about the exact composition would bother using wd-40 in the first place.
To some extent. There are limitations on the technique, including, but not limited to, not determining the relative concentrations and not detecting all components. The WSJ article actually links to an older Wired article about doing gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy on WD-40 and the results: https://www.wired.com/2009/04/st-whatsinside-6/
Related, somebody recently did this for Coke. There's a video on YouTube (I'd link it but my anti-procrastination filter is on).
But yes, I strongly suspect a motivated party could use analytical chemistry to work it out.
I imagine the "what's next" is the same for replicating Coke or WD-40, you have a similar product and none of the name recognition or ad spend.
Not worth much.
Ha! ;)
Knowing all the molecules in it might be only a minor step towards actually making it, especially since some inputs of production might not be present in the final product.
Trying to come up with that would result in WD-38, WD-41, etc.
Can't read the paywalled article, but Water Displacement formula 40 seemed to be the best of the formulas for being a lubricant.
It probably wouldn't be that hard. This mystique is mostly marketing. I mean it's not like WD-40 has no competitors on the market. It might not even be the best.
As an alternative for better lubrication of two-metals-rubbing together (door hinges, simple tools, etc) I use Tri-Flow because it has PTFE that stays as a white powder. If you have a stuck bolt, PBBlaster wicks into the threads better. And if you have sticker glue, use GooGone.
Maybe I'm just a fuddy-duddy but my eyes about rolled out of my head reading this. The same article could probably be written about multiple companies and it'd be just as uninteresting. It's my understanding that there isn't anything special about WD-40, as in alternatives exist that can work just as well. Now, I think WD-40 is a brand name that can be trusted to work well more often than most alternatives but that is more about process than recipe (I would think).
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.
> I've long thought that every restaurant/bakery/etc could publish their full internal cookbooks and not see a drop in sales.
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.
Nothing gets gearhead nerds going more than arguing about lubricants and gas. Ask the wrong group of dudes about when to change your oil at breakfast, and they will still be going at dinner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDkH3EbWTYc
Relevant video on someone reverse engineering the formula for coca cola
Personally I use Ballistol, silicone lube, graphite lube, and penetrating oil for all the applications WD-40 is marketed for.
> Gift link
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.
How to tell you didn't even read the submission you're commenting on.
I don't know if that's really fair. It's much more rare for HN link posts to have bodies and this one is a single line of the gift link. Yes, that gift link works today but it's also completely reasonable to post the archive link.
The actual submission link isn’t using the gift link. And “reading” the submission doesn’t reveal the end of the URL with the gift access token.
It's the same article without the pay wall
WSJ 'gift links' often do not actually work. I don't know whether they have a "usage count" or a 'good for x time' expiration, but more often than not they don't work (beyond "gifting" a paywall).
How can you be the head of R&D at the company and you don’t know what the product is made of?
Fuck me, these people get paid millions just for existing and they don’t have a clue what they’re doing.
In the PNW at least there's a cult application of WD-40 as a fish attractant (applied to lures). Not sure if anyone's done any sort of controlled trial but lots of folks have sworn by it for decades.
> the lubricant
Are you absolutely, positively kidding me?
Does article go into how it is manufactured without anybody knowing? Some manufacturing engineers somewhere must know.
Unless they have own refining facility, and it is more like a recipe of temperatures/pressures.
and yet their revenues are not even 1 billion.
It requires a special key, nondisclosure agreements, passage through a bank vault and, typically, an executive title. The drinks don’t flow, members don’t rub elbows with notable people and chefs aren’t filling plates with tasty bites. The only perk is knowing the secrets of the world’s most famous lubricant. And yet, for those in the know, there’s no greater privilege.
In other news, WD-40 is not a lubricant.
It is absolutely a lubricant - it is a combination "lubricant, rust preventive, penetrant and moisture displacer". Whether it's the correct or best lubricant for many applications is iffy, but that doesn't mean it isn't a lubricant!
My recent trip to the ground was sufficient proof to me that even water is a lubricant.
Depending on where you apply it, it's absolutely a lubricant.
From personal experience, I can count on one hand the number of times that wd40 (edit: at least the canonical formulation) has been the best lubricant for a given application.
Being a recognized household name makes it infinity less likely you'll have someone complaining if you use it in a "nice" setting.
That makes it the "best" for a lot of "anything works" applications.
for me its that its not at all long lasting. I guess it's fine as a cleaner, but even light mineral oil hangs around longer.
oh right, it also seems to leave a gummy residue, which is really not great for machine tools
yeah, most of my use-cases for classic wd-40 have always been getting things unstuck rather than long-term lubrication. The lubricating action tends to evaporate with the solvent(s) and leaves, as you've pointed out, the famous gummy residue that is good for keeping moisture out but not at being a lubricant
why not use penetrating oil?
Is it? Please explain and provide sources. Just because it feels like a lubricant and maybe advertised as a lubricant it might not actually be a lubricant.
> Just because it feels like a lubricant and maybe advertised as a lubricant
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?
If it reduces friction, it's a lubricant.
Point being, if you're using it as a lubricant, you're using the wrong stuff. What it leaves behind isn't very useful as a lubricant... unlike, you know, an actual lubricant.
WD-40 is now the designation of a whole bunch of products, including chain grease.
The WD-40 website says that is a myth, and it is a lubricant
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.
Sure, and sand is a lubricant in the right scenario. This of course completely misses the point.
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”.
Yeah WD-40 is good for cleaning up old grease or loosing up seized mates more than anything but pretty much as soon as you get it moving you want to clean it up, let it boil off, and then replace it with lithium grease.
"WD-40 Multi-Use Product is a...blend of lubricants"
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?
Yeah and water and gas are maybe a "lubricants" too. It's a pretty shitty lubricant.
Lubricates well enough for 99% of the homeowner things it gets used for.
It's definitely a lubricant.
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-...
3-in-1 is the best bang for the buck lubricant. I use it everywhere. Well, not for that, but for everything else.
It IS a lubricant, although not a very good one.
I am not sure why you are being downvoted but you are absolutely right: it is even in the name (WD stands for 'Water Displacement'). My reaction to this article was a huge: 'why?'. WD-40 is at best mediocre at everything it is used for. Wurth makes much more capable compounds for the came purposes. Their penetrating oil is unmatched. I guess as part of the popular culture, WD-40 has its value but I am not sure its chemical properties are all that unique.
Agree fundamentally WD-40 is a cleaner, but it does offer some lubricant outcomes.
Yep, there are lubricants listed in the ingredients, but the stuff it actually leaves behind when the volatiles are gone is mostly good at displacing water (as the article points out.) Very little in the way of friction reduction.
It also makes a superb bug killer, especially in combination with a barbecue lighter.
Interesting use case. lol. I use it to remove sticker residue from the insufferable companies that use stickers on their products attached with super-glue like adhesive.
Does it work better than something like Goo-Gone?
I hate that. In particular, there is a special place in hell reserved for businesses which put those stickers on books. It's almost impossible to get some of those stickers off without leaving residue or harming the paper.