Noise when tuning in/through signal

<< < (5/5)

Edward Cain:
Thanks Don and Fred. I'll use WD-40 on the cap wipers and see what happens as soon as I figure out my bfo problem or give up and put it back together.

W2WDX:
While your experience may tell (or convince) you otherwise ...

WD-40, a rust remover & lubricant, will break down the carbon deposition on carbon comp pots and eventually the pots will fail .. prematurely. On wirewounds it will break down the adhesives (or laquers, shellacs) used to bond the wire and it will unravel. Deoxit will do the same, since it is intended for metal connectors & contacts only and not for controls. Both leave deposits that will attract dust and also gum up eventually, causing dropouts. In the audio trade using these on pots and faders is grounds for dismissal in a recording studio with million dollar consoles! :-)

There are sprays designed specifically for this application that cost the same as WD-40 ... er ... well ... at least Deoxit. Caig R5 followed with an application of Caig MCL (now called Deoxit Fader series) are some that comes to mind (there are many others). There is no petroleum naptha, which is the component in WD-40 & Deoxit that can cause problems. This problem can be even worse if you are using plastic film type pots which will be outright damaged by petroleum products. Lubrication of a pot is OK (even desirable for tactile reasons) but the correct lubricant is essential. The Deoxit Fader series products are one example of a proper lubricant for pots.

Additionally, WD-40 once "dry" is slightly conductive (more so when wet). And to a lesser degree so is Deoxit. Will it change the value of your pot? Yup, albeit only slightly.

Now on contacts or metal surfaces WD-40 and esspecially Deoxit are just fine, albeit messy if just sprayed willy-nilly (what does that mean anyway). On things like variacs, rubbing the contact surfaces with WD-40 on a rag works really well. In fact, some formulations of regular Deoxit can be used in these various applications if something is used to flush it away (like R5), after it is used to remove oxidation and dirt. But on pots ... no sir ...  I just don't like it.

Now ... this is not audiophoolery. It's not voodoo magic. It's chemistry. Besides WD-40 is messy as hell. It's easier to remove nicotine (Windex on a rag) from old boatanchors than old dried up WD-40 rubbery gunk sludge.

Incidentally, Deoxit has gotten a bad rap because people generally do not use in its intended application, and instead use it as a general cleaner. It is not. It is a liquid designed to remove galvanic corrosion and leave a coating that bonds to the surface of metal molecules to help slow this galvanic action, by attaching itself to these free ions on the metallic molecules at the surface only. The carriers also happen to remove dirt and other free materials. But it is not a true cleaner in the pure sense. This action is also time limited because these galvanic reactions, particularly with high current flow, will eventually overcome this coating. So for Deoxit to be effective it must be used with a certain regularity.

You may hear, "Ahhh come on now, I have used WD-40 for 30 years with no problem". However, what you never hear is the pots they have replaced. Nor do these folks know why they really had to do so after using WD-40 over time, and assume it's just aging components. Beware of common "wisdom". Sometimes it doesn't account for chemistry.

 

flintstone mop:
Everything is going to hell here reading this thread.
These were all of magic tricks!!!!!!!!!!   8)

Jus keeding

Phred

W2WDX:
 ;D

Edward Cain:
Thanks to all who responded. Don and Fred, the WD-40 seems to have done the trick. Sounds good now.

Ed

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page