Photography/Videography (Techniques & Equipment).Perhaps the WD-40 product is in fact the more appropriate cleaner for our applications. So, despite the presence of isopropyl alcohol in the WD-40 product, its heptane content has the low, 1.9 constant (I couldn't find the constants for the other listed chemicals). WD-40 Specialized electrical contact cleaner: Do you know which one has the lower dielectric property? I know that sometimes suppliers/stock can vary on Amazon, but I was able to find the WD-40 Specialist electrical contact cleaner on Amazon here, and also at my local Home Depot (though stock can also vary by region at home centers).Īccording this chart here, ethanol has a higher (worse) dielectric constant than isopropyl alcohol (source for heptane is here): No isopropyl alcohol." I only chose the protectorant version since that was the one named in Joe Fugate's chart. Hi! Are you referring to CRC QD Contact Cleaner? An Amazon customer stated, " can says it contains isohexane, difluorethane, N-hexane, and ethanol. I've never been able to find the WD40 Contact Cleaner anywhere. Last edited by Metrolink 26th Jun 2020 at 02:02 PM.ĬRC Contact Cleaner and CRC Contact Cleaner and Protectant are two different products with slightly different dielectric properties. I'll post updates here on how well the DeOxit works over the next few months. Then, I'll treat my rails with the DeOxit G100L liquid anti-oxidizer. By the way, does anyone have any ideas on how the silicone in the CRC product would affect performance in our applications? CRC also sells a "QD" contact cleaner spray-can (which omits the silicone "protectorant"), as well as a contact cleaner in liquid form (which is very pricey).įirst, I plan to re-Flitz my mainline, then re-clean with my just-bought cans of WD-40 contact cleaners. Since reading the article I stopped using alcohol and switched to the CRC contact cleaner, but will change to using the WD-40 contact cleaner in place of that. As many of you have since surmised, thanks to MRH's Joe Fugate's research, isopropyl alcohol is no longer modelers' first choice for track-cleaning. The handy chart above shows the relative dielectric constants for commonly used solvents (lower is better). I think the polishing-grit removes heavy oxidation that solvents alone may not, yet is so fine, it avoids the kind of damage using a BrightBoy may incur.Īnother member posted this MRH table in another thread, so I suppose it's okay to post here, properly credited: I think the reason the above worked so well (still, pre-DeOxit) is that the Flitz takes off the difficult-to-remove, heavy oxidation using a petroleum-based, ultra-fine polishing compound. I haven't applied the DeOxit yet, but chose this over NO-OX since it's in liquid form and seems easier to apply (they make the same "chemical-bonding" claim as NO-OX). Trains run great now, and I've never seen my Kato Portrams run so problem-free on their little Unitram loop. Then I hit everything with CRC contact cleaner & protectorant (dielectric constant = 2.0), again using the Home Depot rags. I used a number of rags, and with each application a ton of black carbon would transfer to the rag (it's best to toss them after use since the petroleum odor lingered even after multiple laundry-cycles). It took a bit of elbow-grease to remove all the tarnish from the track, but it basically got them to really shine-I mean it looked like I gleamed the track. I applied the Flitz metal polish using HDX rags from Home Depot (55-count bag sells for $10.97).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |