Talk:Oil

From DIYWiki
Revision as of 14:08, 3 December 2018 by NT (talk | contribs) (Possible Restructure)

wd40

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unitedpetroleum.com.au%2Fdocs%2Fin-store-msds%2Fmsds_wd40_aerosol_.pdf%3Fsfvrsn%3D2&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHu6ndXW_WYike5XUUYEJwL0AgMVA

will update later NT 03:08, 2 September 2014 (BST)


FAQ at http://wd40.com

"What surfaces or materials are OK to use WD-40(tm) Multi-Use Product on?"

"WD-40(tm) Multi-Use Product can be used on just about everything. It

is safe to use on metal, rubber, wood, and plastic.  It can also be
applied to painted metal surfaces without harming the paint.
Polycarbonate and clear polystyrene plastic are among the few
surfaces on which to avoid using a petroleum-based product like
WD-40(tm) Multi-Use Product." 

~~

edit

I don't have time now but this needs sorting out.

3 in One is a brand of oil that attempts to be 3 things in one: lubricating oil, penetrating oil and corrosion prevention. Since these 3 tasks have conflicting requirements its impossible to make a good job of them all with one product. + 3-in-One is a brand of oil, marketed for lubrication, cleaning of metal and protection against rust. It is prone to becoming gummy, which limits its usefulness for lubrication. Nevertheless, it comes packed in a small can with a spout, so it comes in handy for all sorts of jobs.

− Since its prone to becoming gummy we don't recommend it as a lubricant. The cans it comes in are handy. + At least one manufacturer of air conditioners recommends 3-in-One for use during making-up of flared pipe connections, because it does not contain unwanted additives. NT (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

... I think it reads better now with a little introductory text before it. I am unsure what "sorting out" would be, but it might be better to rewrite the section as a description of the generic "handy oil" types of products sold in small cans with spouts, and give 3 in One as a popular and typical example. I can do this if you are happy ... Richard Gawler (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


I think really it would be best to sort out the existing material first. While you've trimmed a lot of debatables you've also removed an awful lot of diy info. If I didn't have other things to do I'd revert the huge deletions & take the material to uk.d-i-y for the newsgroup to discuss & decide what to do. NT (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the structure is much clearer now. Much of the information is still there, just better organised and some of the duplication gone. There was a tendency for some of the sections to include lots of information that while correct did not really have much practical use and were not really DIY relevant like how tankers are labelled, or what markers are included in various oils to discourage tax evasion etc. --John Rumm (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Glowplug fuel

Many differing formulations of glow fuel have been used. Some contain ether & other substances that can cause major accidents or death by inhalation. Some of these formulae are or were surprisingly toxic.

Yup, although its usually the methanol that's the most dangerous component. I put a link into the Model Technics site (A local firm, who are also the largest manufacturers of glow fuel in the UK), they have COSHH sheets for all the components they use.
The take away message being - don't use it for anything other than running engines! (although there is a slight irony, that using petrol as a solvent is an effective way of clearing the gunk out of an old glow engine that was never laid up properly and where all the caster oil has solidified)

--John Rumm (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

They have used far more dangerous things than methanol. NT (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Of the compounds used in the model technics fuels, the methanol is the one with most serious health effects (look at the COSHH sheet) - certainly worse than the ether and nitro. Other brands like Byron seem to use similar compounds. Weston seen somewhat more cagey about their blends. Having said that its a bit of a moot point, since I can't see many people thinking that glow fuel is going to be useful as a lubricant anyway. (I would be happy to take the section out along with petrol, since neither really fit most people's understanding of "oil". --John Rumm (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

3 brands of current stock does not cover all glow fuels. There have been some nasty formulae out there. NT (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The three mentioned pretty much dominate the market. Still this is not really worth debating further since we are in agreement that its not suitable for use as a lubricant anyway. --John Rumm (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible Restructure

I suggest, split this page into two topics "lubricants" and "finishing oils" and redirect. This would allow for a better treatment of the two most useful subjects and their applications. We could add for example molybdenum (which I think is worth a mention), and a reader wishing to find out about graphite will cfind it under a more relevant heading.

Fuel oil might justify a topic of its own, but perhaps better with a generic "fuels" topic. There seem to be few details of fuel oil specific to DIY applications.

Yup, that makes sense. Not sure what level the "finishing" category ought to be though. e.g. we could have a "wood finishes" article that includes oil but also other finishing options - that might be too broad though. Could have an "oil finishes" one - that could include metal finishing oils and patination oils, or even a more specific "wood finishing oils", with all the types and perhaps applications techniques as well. --John Rumm (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


Only problem would be how to split them. I guess you could just duplicate sections into more than 1 article. Though TBH I don't see an upside, would be more useful to add another article. NT (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)