[HN Gopher] People who know the formula for WD-40
___________________________________________________________________
People who know the formula for WD-40
Gift link: https://www.wsj.com/business/the-secret-society-of-
people-wh...
Author : fortran77
Score : 45 points
Date : 2026-01-26 21:11 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| hurricanepootis wrote:
| Couldn't WD-40's formula be reverse engineered using analytical
| chemical techniques? GC-MS, NMR, etc.
| 542458 wrote:
| 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.
| pogue wrote:
| Ha! ;)
| throwawayq3423 wrote:
| 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.
| pogue wrote:
| 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
| xeonmc wrote:
| Instructions unclear. Taste-tested WD40.
| guerrilla wrote:
| It smells so fucking good though, don't you think? You
| almost want to taste it.
| cryptoz wrote:
| 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.
| pogue wrote:
| 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.
| capitainenemo wrote:
| 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.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| 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
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| kerosene
|
| Like in Grog
| loosescrews wrote:
| 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/
| dylan604 wrote:
| 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.
| daedrdev wrote:
| 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.
| IshKebab wrote:
| 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.
| krackers wrote:
| 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.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _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.
| nodesocket wrote:
| Agree fundamentally WD-40 is a cleaner, but it does offer some
| lubricant outcomes.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| 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.
| nodesocket wrote:
| 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.
| pirates wrote:
| Does it work better than something like Goo-Gone?
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| 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.
| 542458 wrote:
| 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!
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| 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.
| rzzzt wrote:
| WD-40 is now the designation of a whole bunch of products,
| including chain grease.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| My recent trip to the ground was sufficient proof to me that
| even water is a lubricant.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Depending on where you apply it, it's absolutely a
| lubricant.
| coredev_ wrote:
| 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.
| preommr wrote:
| > 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?
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| If it reduces friction, it's a lubricant.
| b00ty4breakfast wrote:
| 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.
| convolvatron wrote:
| 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
| b00ty4breakfast wrote:
| 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
| senderista wrote:
| why not use penetrating oil?
| cucumber3732842 wrote:
| 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.
| cortesoft wrote:
| 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.
| rpcope1 wrote:
| Yeah and water and gas are maybe a "lubricants" too. It's a
| pretty shitty lubricant.
| cucumber3732842 wrote:
| Lubricates well enough for 99% of the homeowner things it
| gets used for.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| "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?
| Modified3019 wrote:
| 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".
| zzless wrote:
| 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.
| copperx wrote:
| It IS a lubricant, although not a very good one.
| PyWoody wrote:
| 3-in-1 is the best bang for the buck lubricant. I use it
| everywhere. Well, not for that, but for everything else.
| caminante wrote:
| 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-...
| notpushkin wrote:
| > 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.
| parliament32 wrote:
| https://archive.ph/kfzIc
| Etheryte wrote:
| How to tell you didn't even read the submission you're
| commenting on.
| dwedge wrote:
| It's the same article without the pay wall
| treesknees wrote:
| 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.
| joshstrange wrote:
| 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.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| 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.
| dantiberian wrote:
| 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.
| nu11ptr wrote:
| 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....
| fabiensanglard wrote:
| 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.
| atombender wrote:
| 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
| 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.
| addaon wrote:
| > 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.
| sieep wrote:
| 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.
| awesome_dude wrote:
| 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.
| Etheryte wrote:
| 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.
| mulmen wrote:
| I wonder how much information leaks through something like
| Material Safety Data Sheets.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| 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.
| supern0va wrote:
| 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.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartreuse_(liqueur)
| lgleason wrote:
| and yet their revenues are not even 1 billion.
| CAP_NET_ADMIN wrote:
| 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
| OutOfHere wrote:
| It probably contains PFAS too which probably makes it
| altogether hazardous to spray at all. Also, I suspect that
| breathing its ambient vapor while spraying it is is bad for the
| body and brain.
|
| Canola oil works super well in practice without any of these
| risks.
| legitster wrote:
| 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.
| OneDeuxTriSeiGo wrote:
| 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.
| joshstrange wrote:
| 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.
| TheJoeMan wrote:
| 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.
| legitster wrote:
| 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.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > 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.
| Loughla wrote:
| 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.
| senderista wrote:
| 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.
| senderista wrote:
| Personally I use Ballistol, silicone lube, graphite lube, and
| penetrating oil for all the applications WD-40 is marketed for.
| singleshot_ wrote:
| > the lubricant
|
| Are you absolutely, positively kidding me?
| htrp wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDkH3EbWTYc
|
| Relevant video on someone reverse engineering the formula for
| coca cola
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-26 23:00 UTC)