Contact cleaning

[EddieM]

Hmmm - as I think we have agreed, there is no ambiguity in either of the 'descriptors' of that molecule, but I think that's more than can be said of some things in BS7671!

Kind Regards, John

Certainly agree on that, as long as it is unambiguous then really it comes down to common usage, if one were to bandy about, in this case 2,2,3,3 (which is technically the "most" accurate descriptor) Then I feel a chemist would probably feel you were being a bit verbose, when 2,3 would have been fine and unambiguous.

 

[JohnW2]

Certainly agree on that, as long as it is unambiguous then really it comes down to common usage, if one were to bandy about, in this case 2,2,3,3 (which is technically the "most" accurate descriptor) Then I feel a chemist would probably feel you were being a bit verbose, when 2,3 would have been fine and unambiguous.

Yes, that would be a reasonable argument.

However, in the case of tetramethylbutane, might the chemist not even argue that having any numbers (even just "2,3") was "being a bit ('unnecessarily') verbose", since it presumably wouldn't really be tetramethylbutane if there were methyl substitutions at the "1" or "4" positions of butane - since it would then presumably become tetramethylpentane or tetramethylhexane (either of which would need 'the numbers')?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EddieM]

Yes, that would be a reasonable argument.

However, in the case of tetramethylbutane, might the chemist not even argue that having any numbers (even just "2,3") was "being a bit ('unnecessarily') verbose", since it presumably wouldn't really be tetramethylbutane if there were methyl substitutions at the "1" or "4" positions of butane - since it would then presumably become tetramethylpentane or tetramethylhexane (either of which would need 'the numbers')?

Kind Regards, John

Well as I think you intimated in a previous post, in this example, "the bases are loaded" so again, in this case you are correct in your assertion that the numbers offer no further disambiguation.

 

[Laurence Harvey]

WD40 is not a contact cleaner, so not suitable. It is Water Displacement version 40.

...what was being ‘displaced’ by the previous 39 (unsuccessful) versions then?

 

[winston1]

...what was being ‘displaced’ by the previous 39 (unsuccessful) versions then?

Apparently they were not very good. Ask the manufacturer.

 

[bernardgreen]

Ask the manufacturer

https://www.wd40.com/cool-stuff/history

 

[Laurence Harvey]

https://www.wd40.com/cool-stuff/history

Interesting link,.. thanks for that;

...and what a magnanimous company WD40 are , quote: “In 1968 goodwill kits containing WD-40 were sent to soldiers in Vietnam to prevent moisture damage on firearms “ ...imagine the look of joy on the GI’s faces when they opened that particular gift.

WD40 is a magical product though,... lubricant, de-greaser, cleanser, weedkiller, underarm deodorant and emergency aftershave,...the list is endless.

 

[SUNRAY]

Interesting link,.. thanks for that;

...and what a magnanimous company WD40 are , quote: “In 1968 goodwill kits containing WD-40 were sent to soldiers in Vietnam to prevent moisture damage on firearms “ ...imagine the look of joy on the GI’s faces when they opened that particular gift.

WD40 is a magical product though,... lubricant, de-greaser, cleanser, weedkiller, underarm deodorant and emergency aftershave,...the list is endless.

Indeed, my 5 year old grandaughter saw her mummy using hairspray and decided her 2 year old sister needed the same treatment. Well at least there was no water in her hair after a whole can of it...

 

[EddieM]

The lady that confused expanding foam with hair mousse is quite an amusing picture (and one hell of a mess)

 

[Laurence Harvey]

The lady that confused expanding foam with hair mousse is quite an amusing picture (and one hell of a mess)

“The camera never lies” ,...well, perhaps sometimes.

[/url
]

 

[SUNRAY]

“The camera never lies” ,...well, perhaps sometimes.

[/url
]

Not good for contact cleaning either