Scratchy volume controls

[Jessica Whiteman]

What can I do about volume knobs and sliders that become "scratchy"?

ie. On some of my house radios when I adjust the volume level I get loud
scratchy sounds coming through speakers as you turn the knob. Sometimes the
sound drops to zero until the tap the knob a few times and it comes good.


Any advice much appreciated!


Jessica

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jessica Whiteman" <glk54r702@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:9c0ee82922a1cf78127238440ea4a3e8@free.teranews.com...

What can I do about volume knobs and sliders that become "scratchy"?

ie. On some of my house radios when I adjust the volume level I get loud
scratchy sounds coming through speakers as you turn the knob. Sometimes
the
sound drops to zero until the tap the knob a few times and it comes good.


Any advice much appreciated!


** A few drops of WD40 will fix the noise.

With sliders this is easy - with rotary controls you will need to
open up the items to gain access.


BTW Anyone who thinks this is bad advice is an imbecile.



............ Phil

 

[Ken Taylor]

"Phil Allison" <philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3efbb0d1$0$30819$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"Jessica Whiteman" <glk54r702@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:9c0ee82922a1cf78127238440ea4a3e8@free.teranews.com...

What can I do about volume knobs and sliders that become "scratchy"?

ie. On some of my house radios when I adjust the volume level I get loud
scratchy sounds coming through speakers as you turn the knob. Sometimes
the
sound drops to zero until the tap the knob a few times and it comes
good.


Any advice much appreciated!


** A few drops of WD40 will fix the noise.

With sliders this is easy - with rotary controls you will need
to
open up the items to gain access.

You can often shoot the WD-40 into a rotary pot where the end tabs are on
the control, without having to open it up.

BTW Anyone who thinks this is bad advice is an imbecile.

Not sure why they would (although it isn't a permanent solution, it's easy

and quick), but nice pre-emptive strike Phil. A job awaits at the Pentagon!

Ken

........... Phil

 

[Al Borowski]

<snip>

** A few drops of WD40 will fix the noise.
Hi,

With sliders this is easy - with rotary controls you will need to
open up the items to gain access.

In my experience, it works great over the short term, but attracts
dirt/dust on the pot over the long term.

BTW Anyone who thinks this is bad advice is an imbecile.

Believe it or not, but this topic has been beaten to death.

http://groups.google.com.au/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=u4rnmis7cshr04%40corp.supernews.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Du4rnmis7cshr04%2540corp.supernews.com

http://groups.google.com.au/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=7atedj%24hir%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D7atedj%2524hir%25241%2540nnrp1.dejanews.com

http://groups.google.com.au/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=39487F8C.6D90C0C1%40home.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D39487F8C.6D90C0C1%2540home.com

http://groups.google.com.au/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=332DD5C8.640%40tir.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D332DD5C8.640%2540tir.com

cheers,

Al

........... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Al Borowski" <a.borowski@student.qut.edu.au> wrote in message
news:27bf520c.0306262314.62bd234d@posting.google.com...

snip

** A few drops of WD40 will fix the noise.
Hi,



With sliders this is easy - with rotary controls you will need
to
open up the items to gain access.

In my experience, it works great over the short term, but attracts
dirt/dust on the pot over the long term.

** What ?? So WD is a dust magnet ?

BTW House dust is NOT the main cause of pots crackling - 95% I
treat have no signs of house dust.

BTW Anyone who thinks this is bad advice is an imbecile.


Believe it or not, but this topic has been beaten to death.

** I know - and by masses of fucking imbeciles - mostly stupid Yanks.

That is WHY I posted my comment.



............ Phil

 

[Ross Herbert]

Jessica Whiteman wrote:

What can I do about volume knobs and sliders that become "scratchy"?

ie. On some of my house radios when I adjust the volume level I get loud
scratchy sounds coming through speakers as you turn the knob. Sometimes the
sound drops to zero until the tap the knob a few times and it comes good.

Any advice much appreciated!

Jessica

Jessica,

There has been much discussion over the years as to whether or not WD40
may have deleterious effects on some pots, and given the variety of
opinions expressed, I would still advise caution.

I have seen bad effects effects in sensitive electronics equipment when
the newly arrived (to Australia in the late 1960's) WD40 was sprayed
around with gay abandon as the magical cure-all. It's use was eventually
banned by Engineering HQ for use in electronic equipment.

I checked the WD40 website http://www.wd40.com/Brands/wd40_faqs.html and
I couldn't find any recommendation from the company as to using this
product for noisy volume controls. Not even in the Pro tips could I find
any mention of "potentiometer", "volume" or "rheostat" so it seems that
nobody from that company is keen to suggest that it be used for noisy
potentiometers. Memners of the general public, however, did suggest
using it for noisy volume controls, - but the company includes a
disclaimer to the effect;

"The uses of WD-40 described on this website were provided to WD-40
Company by end-users of the product, and do not constitute
recommendations or suggestions for use of WD-40 by WD-40 Company. These
uses have not been tested by WD-40 Company. Consumers should exercise
common sense whenever using WD-40. Always follow the instructions and
take heed of any warnings printed on the WD-40 packaging."

While they don't specifically say what is in WD40 they do say that WD
stands for "water displacement" and the "40" stands for the 40th attempt
of the inventor to get the formula right as a water displacement
lubricant. The closest you can get to the contents is on the MSDS
http://www.wd40.com/Brands/pdfs/msds-wd40_aerosol.au.pdf
I would recommend a thorough reading of this document.

Quite frankly, I would select one of the electronic cleaner aerosols
such a
RF58 OR RF64 from WES or other distributors
http://www.rfoot.com.au/Aerosol/Chemical%20Technology%20distributors.htm
There are other brands such as Electrolube, Chem-Tec, CRC etc but these
are generally more expensive. Personally, I prefer the non lubricating
cleaner sprays for the resistive element of pots and I put a drop of
light lubricating oil on the shaft after cleaning this part.

Rgds,

Ross Herbert

 

[Tom L]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:30:16 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

-snip-

** There are many uses that are not mentioned.

Heres one: spay it up Phil's nose until he screams for mercy like a
little girl.

I might send that suggestion in.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Tom L" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:1b1ofv0r3pgs9lks4cfhd7s7ifpi1fhrlt@4ax.com...

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:30:16 +1000, "Phil Allison"
philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

-snip-


** There are many uses that are not mentioned.

Heres one: spay it up Phil's nose until he screams for mercy like a
little girl.

** Friends with Martin Bryant ???



............... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Tom L" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:c62ofvkchf0sjbb9d58kos1eovoo2khatl@4ax.com...

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:57:47 +1000, "Phil Allison"
philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote


** Friends with Martin Bryant ???


Nope but I'm sure there are plenty of other volunteers here willing to
hold you down whilst I administer the nasal personality modifier to
you.

** So Martin thought you were too crazy for him ?

Too violent and demented for the countries worst mass murderer ??

He preferred to act alone - no gang or lynch mob needed like you want
to justify your crimes.



........................ Phil

 

[Tom L]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:15:16 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

"Tom L" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:c62ofvkchf0sjbb9d58kos1eovoo2khatl@4ax.com...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:57:47 +1000, "Phil Allison"
philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote


** Friends with Martin Bryant ???


Nope but I'm sure there are plenty of other volunteers here willing to
hold you down whilst I administer the nasal personality modifier to
you.



** So Martin thought you were too crazy for him ?

Too violent and demented for the countries worst mass murderer ??

You seen to know him quite well.

One of your relatives perhaps? Or just your hero?

 

[Phil Allison]

"Tom L" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:a55ofv4ga54knidsajh8s2rq4v9f4e98og@4ax.com...

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 19:15:16 +1000, "Phil Allison"
philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

** So Martin thought you were too crazy for him ?

Too violent and demented for the countries worst mass murderer ??

Lets put back the bit you snipped :

** He preferred to act alone - no gang or lynch mob needed like
you want
to justify your crimes.

You seen to know him quite well.
One of your relatives perhaps? Or just your hero?

** You avoided the issue.



............. Phil

 

[Ross Herbert]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Ross Herbert" <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:3EFBF9D8.8AEA4DDE@bigpond.net.au...

There has been much discussion over the years as to whether or not WD40
may have deleterious effects on some pots, and given the variety of
opinions expressed, I would still advise caution.

** I knew this would bring out the ratbags - and one prize example has
appeared.

I'll disregard the obvious attempt to belittle me and your endeavour to

show that nobody else's opinion matters,...except yours of course Phil.

I have seen bad effects effects in sensitive electronics equipment when
the newly arrived (to Australia in the late 1960's) WD40 was sprayed
around with gay abandon as the magical cure-all. It's use was eventually
banned by Engineering HQ for use in electronic equipment.

** No details ????

Alright, since you asked. Certain plastic insulators used in relay
spring piles began to crack. Also, the lubricant in the WD40 thickens
and traps dust leading to high resistance or intermittent open circuits
in contacts.

This is just to alarm you over nothing.

Another assumption portrayed as fact.

I checked the WD40 website http://www.wd40.com/Brands/wd40_faqs.html and
I couldn't find any recommendation from the company as to using this
product for noisy volume controls.

** So what ?

Only a pedantic, paranoid FOOL would give a hoot.

Oh, so details are not important now. One minute you are asking for
evidence and when it is provided you say it is pedantic and should be
discounted. Make up your mind Phil.

Not even in the Pro tips could I find
any mention of "potentiometer", "volume" or "rheostat" so it seems that
nobody from that company is keen to suggest that it be used for noisy
potentiometers.

** There are many uses that are not mentioned.

You mean there could be more than the 2000 odd uses already suggested?
Disregarding all the user suggestions, it would seem strange that in all
the legitimate uses suggested by the manufacturers themselves that they
don't mention its use for curing noisy volume controls.

Members of the general public, however, did suggest
using it for noisy volume controls, - but the company includes a
disclaimer to the effect;

"The uses of WD-40 described on this website were provided to WD-40
Company by end-users of the product, and do not constitute
recommendations or suggestions for use of WD-40 by WD-40 Company. These
uses have not been tested by WD-40 Company. Consumers should exercise
common sense whenever using WD-40. Always follow the instructions and
take heed of any warnings printed on the WD-40 packaging."

** And there is NONE against using it in this way.

Now who is being pedantic?

Quite frankly, I would select one of the electronic cleaner aerosols
such a RF58 OR RF64 from WES or other distributors

** RF 58 is no use at all, it is a de-fluxing agent. ( same as freon -
it merely evaporates and leaves the noise behind ). RF 64 is similar to
WD40 but seems to have some silicone in it - very bad for contacts - > highly insulating.

The RF58 does exactly what is required. Used correctly it washes all the
loose particles of resistive material dislodged from the track by the
wiper and flushes them out where they can't cause more trouble. It is
these particles which cause most of the noise. How many potentiometers
have lubricant on the track when purchased? I don't recall any that do
so the addition of lubricant is something the manufacturer's don't seem
to think is necessary.

Of course, if the resistive track has had so much wear that much of the
resistive material is missing or is very thin then it won't matter what
cleaning agent you use.

Now let's get down to your assumptions being turned into facts...

RF64 contains no silicone whatsoever. If you don't believe me then I
challenge you to find this information for yourself. You assumed that it
contains silicone and then stated the obvious "very bad for contacts -
highly insulating" inferring that RF64 is a product which should not be
used for contacts because it will cause problems. Who is the fool now?

The published ingredients of RF64 are;

Petroleum distillates >60%
Alcohol <10%
Polyglycol (Butoxy Poly Propylene Glycol) <10% Note:
Hydrocarbon Propellant

(The high concentration of distillates would certainly dissolve crud as
effectively as WD40)

Note: This chemical is commonly used in pesticides to aid the mixing of
other ingredients, and as a surfactant. It has lots of uses in the
insecticide field but in RF64 it is probably used for the two reasons
above.

WD dissolves the greasy crud and leaves a very thin layer of
ordinary oil to protect the metal - works like a charm and no bad effects.

No doubt it does dissolve crud but in pots you need to flush the crud
out as well, not leave it there and then trap it in the oily residue. It
might protect the metal but surely the resistive element is the most
important part of a potentiometer? The tips of the metal slider are
generally self cleaning, - provided of course you don't coat them with
lubricant which then collects all the crud as it moves across the track.

As far as your own use of RF products goes... I assume you still have
all those cans of "fine Aussie products", since they can't be as good as
your WD40?

Ross Herbert


"Phil Allison" <bilup@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:gnp%8.42688$Hj3.127810@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...

Hi to all,

I have a mixing deck in for service with a disgusting smell coming
from inside. The owner tells me he sprayed the internals out with RF
Electronics Cleaning Solvent No 1 - bought from David Reid's - and that
the
smell is due to the spray.

RF tell me the product should have virtually no smell or lingering
after odour.

** The Richard Foot people in Sydney have contacted me an admitted
there was a bad batch. Seems the trace of perfume added to mask the
alcohol
smell was given a massive overdose by a sub contractor.

The are sending me a parcel of their products as a good will
gesture.

It is sure nice to deal with a local manufacturer direct -
anyone
remember when most of electronics in Aussie was like that??


Regards, Phil




The nice peole at "rf" or Richard Foot P/L delivered me a parcel
consisting of six cans of their fine Aussie products.

There was one can each of "Q43 silicon grease compound", "circuit
board lacquer" "electronic circuit board cleaner", "electrical contact
cleaner lubricant" and two cans of the previously offending "electronic
cleaning solvent no.1" which have a mild and pleasant perfume.

If you get one of the smelly cans from Altronics or David Reid's
etc
then take it back for a replacement.


Regards, Phil

 

[Ross Herbert]

Phil Allison wrote:

RF64 contains no silicone whatsoever. If you don't believe me then I
challenge you to find this information for yourself.

** Never said it did - read my post again fuckhead.

Yep, here is your statement;

RF64 is similar to WD40 but SEEMS TO HAVE SOME SILICONE IN IT (my
emphasis) - very bad for contacts - highly insulating.

Now if that is not a plain statement made by you that RF64 ... "SEEMS TO
HAVE SOME SILICONE IN IT" then what is it? Any normal, sane person would
interpret this to mean exactly that "RF64... seems to have some silicone
in it", and since this statement has been made by none other than Phil
Allison, then it must be accurate and factual. You obviously have a very
selective interpretation on just what you mean by your statements, - and
I might add, that this selective interpretation comes just after you are
caught out.

The published ingredients of RF64 are;

Petroleum distillates >60%
Alcohol <10%
Polyglycol (Butoxy Poly Propylene Glycol) <10% Note:
Hydrocarbon Propellant

** What about the unpublished ones ??????

Well, as far as legislation goes on product ingredients they don't have
specify exactly which petroleum distillates are used or their
percentages but they do have to name the chemicals used for health and
safety reasons. I don't suppose you would be suggesting that they would
be permitted to leave out any volatile or potentially hazardous material
in order to protect their formula would you?

Your whole arguement is a hypothetical sinve you have not used the
stuff.

You know that for a fact do you Phil? Not just taking a slight
guess,...or making another assumption, heh?

It
might protect the metal but surely the resistive element is the most
important part of a potentiometer? The tips of the metal slider are
generally self cleaning, - provided of course you don't coat them with
lubricant which then collects all the crud as it moves across the track.

** More hypothesising - from a moron.

Hypothesis has nothing to do with it. Just open up a pot which has had

lubricant in it and a significant degree of use and you will see quite a
lot of crud built up around the wiper tips.

As far as your own use of RF products goes... I assume you still have
all those cans of "fine Aussie products", since they can't be as good as
your WD40?

** I do not trust the RF contact cleaner/lubricant on pots or
switches - it has no proven track record like the 30 years of countless folk
using WD successfully has going for it.

So you were lying when you said RF made "fine aussie products"?

You are an absolute fool Ross.

Tut, tut.. Can't get your own way again.. Naughty Ross, don't upset
Phil, he is so sensitive.

You rely on non facts, superstitions and rumours and deny any
DIRECT evidence exists.

Quite the opposite in fact Phil, unlike yourself. Just show me where I
have "denied any direct evidence exists" - and I might ask, denial of
evidence of what specifically. The only evidence of the efficacy of WD40
for curing noisy pots we have is from a few users, like yourself, but
none at all from the manufacturer nor, I would venture to say, from the
vast majority of electronics service personnel across the world. But of
course, since the venerable Phil Allison recommends it so highly for
this purpose, then everyone else must be a fool for using products
specifically manufactured, and recommended for such purposes. And on top
of that, they must be idiots to believe that anything other than WD40
should be used for cleaning and lubricating potentiometers.

I have not said that WD40 is not a good product. I have intimated that
it is perhaps not the best product for the specific purpose we are
discussing, and this appears to be backed up by the manufacturers
themselves. After all, it was developed specifically as a "water
displacement lubricant", basically to be used onmachinery ,tools etc. I
have yet to find that water is usually found in potentiometers...unless
by accident. Naturally, its petro chemical products do have a good
solvent effect on grerase and other crud, but they also have some
deleterious effects on some plastics. Not all plastics mind you, but who
knows what plastics are used in potentiometers of any brand, and just
how WD40 will affect them? Surely it is wiser to use a product that is
shown to be safe with (most) plastics.

And in future, try to stay calm and not resort to personal abuse and
similar ridicule... it doesn't work.

 

[Spajky]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:44:26 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

You can often shoot the WD-40 into a rotary pot where the end tabs are on
the control, without having to open it up.

** Jezuz !!! - the item is the radio or whatever !!!!!!!!!!

I was using it almost anytime for 30y /except for PC fans & high
voltage stuff/ w/o any consequeces ...

-- Regards, SPAJKY
- http://freeweb.siol.net/jerman55/HP/Spajky.htm
Celly-III OC-ed "Tualatin on BX-Slot1-MoBo!"
E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##

 

[Tom L]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:07:10 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

** You avoided the issue.



............ Phil

What's that Mr Pot? The kettle is black you say?

I've had enough fun taunting you for now.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Spajky" <Spajky##@volja.net> wrote in message
news:amaofv8re7kplj11s1bepal1emml3t9gdm@4ax.com...

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:44:26 +1000, "Phil Allison"
philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

You can often shoot the WD-40 into a rotary pot where the end tabs are
on
the control, without having to open it up.

** Jezuz !!! - the item is the radio or whatever !!!!!!!!!!

I was using it almost anytime for 30y /except for PC fans & high
voltage stuff/ w/o any consequeces ...

** Same here. With common sense you will have none.

Do not use large amounts and keep it off RF circuitry and moving
rubber parts.

Remember Servisol and Super Servisol ?


............ Phil

 

[KLR]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:42:59 +0200, Spajky <Spajky##@volja.net> wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:44:26 +1000, "Phil Allison"
philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

You can often shoot the WD-40 into a rotary pot where the end tabs are on
the control, without having to open it up.

** Jezuz !!! - the item is the radio or whatever !!!!!!!!!!

I was using it almost anytime for 30y /except for PC fans & high
voltage stuff/ w/o any consequeces ...

I don't know about WD40 (is it flammable - or is it non flammable ? )
as I haven't used it, However the electrical spray CRC 2-26 I find it
works well on the high voltage (EHT) section in TVs. One great use
for it is cleaning EHT caps and the area around the EHT hole on CRT
tubes/ An effective and easy fix when these things arc out around
the rubber cap/glass seal.

2-26 works well on pots, connectors of many kinds too. I even spray
pots etc from new to help protect, lubricate and extend life.

-- Regards, SPAJKY
- http://freeweb.siol.net/jerman55/HP/Spajky.htm
Celly-III OC-ed "Tualatin on BX-Slot1-MoBo!"
E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##

 

[Phil Allison]

"KLR" <kreed@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:qshofvkoln7qd13ur6690adai32f4644pa@4ax.com...

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:42:59 +0200, Spajky <Spajky##@volja.net> wrote:

I was using it almost anytime for 30y /except for PC fans & high
voltage stuff/ w/o any consequeces ...

I don't know about WD40 (is it flammable - or is it non flammable ? )

** The propellant gas is CO2 nowadays - but fine particles of oil and
solvent will flame in air.

Best not to spray it on anything red hot.

as I haven't used it, However the electrical spray CRC 2-26 I find it
works well on the high voltage (EHT) section in TVs.

** WD 40 is very similar to 2-26 ( which used for many years) - what
one does the other will do.

2-26 works well on pots, connectors of many kinds too. I even spray
pots etc from new to help protect, lubricate and extend life.

** So do I sometimes - but don't brag about it - the anti WD forces
will have you on toast.



........... Phil

 

[Ross Herbert]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Ross Herbert" <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:3EFC2A66.31F45BDA@bigpond.net.au...
Phil Allison wrote:


RF64 contains no silicone whatsoever. If you don't believe me then I
challenge you to find this information for yourself.

** Never said it did - read my post again fuckhead.

(snip mad drivel)

** Ross - the word "seems" does not have the same meaning as the word
"does".

Phil, If you care to ask anybody who has even a smattering of knowledge
of the english language then they would tell you that the word "seems"
when
combined with "to have" as in "seems to have" is a direct inference that
the said item (RF64) does in fact contain the other item (silicone). You
are on a million to one loser if you bet on your interpretation of what
you said. As I said, your interpretation of your own statements becomes
very selective after you are caught out, and this is yet another
example.

Here is the Macquarie definition of the verb "seem".

seem
// verb (cop) 1. to appear to be: he seemed angry.
--verb (i) 2. to appear (to be, feel, do, etc.): she seemed to enjoy the
experience. 3. to appear to oneself (to be, do, etc.): I seem to hear
someone calling. 4. to appear to exist: there seems no need to go now.
5. to appear to be true or the case: it seems likely to rain. [Middle
English, from Scandinavian]

Note that No. 5 is the direct usage which you have invoked in your
statement concerning RF64, ie, your statement "RF64 ... seems to have
some silicone in it" is interpreted, according to the Macquarie
definition, as "it appears to be the case that RF64 contains some
silicone".

Caught out again eh Phil...

Only a ratbag would not realise the obvious difference.

Ask any english language teacher and you will find that you are wrong.

You have raised ratbaggery to an artform.

Now who is the ratbag Phil? Certainly not this little white duck.

The published ingredients of RF64 are;

Petroleum distillates >60%
Alcohol <10%
Polyglycol (Butoxy Poly Propylene Glycol) <10% Note:
Hydrocarbon Propellant

** What about the unpublished ones ??????

Well, as far as legislation goes on product ingredients they don't have
specify exactly which petroleum distillates are used or their
percentages but they do have to name the chemicals used for health and
safety reasons. I don't suppose you would be suggesting that they would
be permitted to leave out any volatile or potentially hazardous material
in order to protect their formula would you?

** There is no such law Ross.

The RF rep resfused to detail the ingredients to me on the phone
and commented that they change them as it suits them. Same with all RF
products - eg the solvent with the overdose of perfume, their PCB lacquer
has gone through several versions etc. etc.

Sorry Phil, but chemical items used by industry today all must have
Material Safety Data Sheets which detail all of the relevant safety
aspects pertinent to general usage of those products and the document
must list the essential ingredients. It is true that the manufacturer's
formula may change periodically in percentage of ingredients but if new
ingredients are added, or the ingredients change in any significant way,
then a new MSDS must be prepared showing the changes, under the
provisions of Occupational Health & Safety regulations.

You know that for a fact do you Phil? Not just taking a slight
guess,...or making another assumption, heh?

** Huh ? So have you used it or not ?????

Sure have. In fact I finished a can of RF64 just recently and am now on
a can of Philips contact cleaner.

Why invent problems if you have not seen them ??

While I did not categorically state that I had done so, I have indeed
pulled apart faulty pots which had been lubricated (I don't know for a
fact that it was WD40 or CRC 2-26 or RP7, but these similar products
were the most commonly used at the time), and yes, I did find crud
around the wiper tips. I concluded that the solvent, whatever it was,
had succeeded in reducing the bond between the substrate and the
resistive layer which resulted in resistive material being removed by
the wiper action and collecting around the wiper tips. The pots were non
recoverable because very little resistive material was left in some
spots.

It
might protect the metal but surely the resistive element is the most
important part of a potentiometer? The tips of the metal slider are
generally self cleaning, - provided of course you don't coat them with
lubricant which then collects all the crud as it moves across the
track.

** More hypothesising - from a moron.


Hypothesis has nothing to do with it.

** You are inventing hypothetical problems that do not exist - same as
all anti WD loonies.

If that is not making wild accusations about the intelligence of all
other technical staff who may not use WD40 in the manner that you do,
then I don't know what it is. If one has reservations about the usage of
WD40 for applications for which it is not specifically designed, then
all such persons should therefore labelled "anti WD loonies", but only
under your narrow interpretation, thank goodness.

As far as your own use of RF products goes... I assume you still have
all those cans of "fine Aussie products", since they can't be as good
as
your WD40?

** I do not trust the RF contact cleaner/lubricant on pots or
switches - it has no proven track record like the 30 years of countless
folk
using WD successfully has going for it.

So you were lying when you said RF made "fine aussie products"?

** Thta does not follow from my words.

We've been through this before with your RF64 statement I believe.
Again, your own interpretation is narrow and selective in order to suit
your own viewpoint.

You are an absolute fool Ross.


Tut, tut.. Can't get your own way again.. Naughty Ross, don't upset
Phil, he is so sensitive.

** You are an utter fuckwit Ross.

You rely on non facts, superstitions and rumours and deny any
DIRECT evidence exists.


Quite the opposite in fact Phil, unlike yourself.

** You posts here show that fact. You have not presented one example
of damage or a reason to not use WD on pots and switches. Thousands of
techs world wide use it every day - since you worked for an organisation
that banned it YOU are probably unaware of that.

I really like the fact that Phil Allison can make bland statements
purporting to be facts and not offering any evidence (other than his own
experiences) and then when somebody makes statements in response and
even provides some references or evidence, he simply dismisses that as
irrelevant, or the ravings of loonies, just because it doesn't suit his
own case. What a hypocritical attitude you have Phil.

I never specifically mentioned switches, only pots. It is you who is now
trying to shift the goalposts. We can start another discussion on that
topic but I would probably have a bit more agreement with you there.

I have not said that WD40 is not a good product. I have intimated that
it is perhaps not the best product for the specific purpose we are
discussing,

and this appears to be backed up by the manufacturers
themselves.

** That is again drawing a false conclusion from no evidence.

Come on Phil, get real. You mean to say that among all those 1000's of
uses put forward to WD40 by users that they still won't check them out
to see if they can add them to their own list of recommended uses? After
all, there would be literally 1000's of cans of contact cleaner used
every day. Great market opportunity going begging in my opinion, and one
they are not likely to want to miss out on. If they were confident they
could recommend it for electronics uses I am sure they would.

You have cast unjustified doubt on my good advice - since you have
not got a clue.

Unjustified doubt... I just love that. And from you of all people Phil.
The
one who makes bland statements, often with no real verifiable evidence,
and then you have the gall to criticise others who do provide some
evidence to back up their opposite opinion. On top of that you whinge
and whine about about how you are having doubt cast upon your own good
advice as if it is the only advice which should be considered. You are
rich Phil. Stop and take a look at the world, Phil Allison is not the
only one on it...

That makes you just another anti WD paranoiac.

Can you account for my and others 30 years of good results and no
damage with WD ?

Alternatives like CRC 2-26 are so similar as makes no difference -
and it is recommended for electronics.

Another example of you making a bland statement without any evidence to
back your claim, something for which you are so critical of others who
do likewise. How about you doing the research to back up your own
statement re CRC 2-26. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander.

Neither WD40, CRC2-26 nor RP7 was allowed on the premises where I
worked.

You have no case Ross - but you are one.

Again, you can't get your way so you resort to piddling attempts at
belittling and personal insult. It shows you lack any real ability to
argue your point successfully. You won't win this way Phil.

 

[Phil Allison]

** Ross - the word "seems" does not have the same meaning as the word
"does".

Only a ratbag would not realise the obvious difference.

You have raised ratbaggery to an artform.


** You are inventing hypothetical problems that do not exist - same as
all anti WD loonies.

** You are an utter fuckwit Ross.


** You posts here show that fact. You have not presented one example
of damage or a reason to not use WD on pots and switches. Thousands of
techs world wide use it every day - since you worked for an organisation
that banned it YOU are probably unaware of that.


** That is again drawing a false conclusion from no evidence.

You have cast unjustified doubt on my good advice - since you have
not got a clue. That makes you just another anti WD paranoiac.

Can you account for my and others 30 years of good results and no
damage with WD ?

Alternatives like CRC 2-26 are so similar as makes no difference -
and it is recommended for electronics.



** Want to try again Ross - that last effort was pathetic.




............ Phil