DeoxIt D-5 residue question

Is the oily (non-volatile) component of DeoxIt, the stuff that stays behind after the propellant evaporates, conductive? IIRC this has been discussed elsewhere. I am beginning to have doubts about this product. . . .

deepee99 wrote:Is the oily (non-volatile) component of DeoxIt, the stuff that stays behind after the propellant evaporates, conductive? IIRC this has been discussed elsewhere. I am beginning to have doubts about this product. . . .

According to Caig's own site: "DeoxIT, DeoxIT GOLD, DeoxIT SHIELD, DeoxIT FaderLube liquids are completely non-conductive, and neither the 100% liquids or the 5% spray versions contain alcohol or any other conductive constituents."

What specifically is it that is causing your doubts about the product? And I assume you are talking about the most common product - the D-5 5% spray, correct?

I have to tell you that I've heard more crazy stuff about it than any other product out there. I even had a guy say (and post on a forum) that DeOxit dissolves the glass around the tube pins  when you use it to clean the pins! That of course is nonsense. I've used it on tube pins for more years than I can remember - no issues. I've also heard it leaves a thick gooey residue when you use it - so I sprayed it into a clean clear glass container and let it evaporate - no "thick, gooey residue" was left. I believe much of the "discussion" that exists about this product is not based in anything beyond anecdotal or hearsay evidence that is often based on sweeping generalizations.

Also, DeOxit chemically cleans contacts as well as flushing off surface deposits. From Caig's documentation:

"Some film deposits are effectively removed with "wash-type" cleaners such as DustALL, CaiKleen, Tuner Cleaners, CAEON 27, CAEON 28 or alcohol. Oxides and sulfides, however, become an integral part of the contact surface and cannot be removed by ordinary contact cleaners. The most effective method of removing these films is chemical action. DeoxIT dissolves oxides and sulfides that form on metal contact surfaces, removing these sources of resistance. This restores the contact's integrity and leaves a thin (organic) layer that coats and protects the metals. Special additives prevent the dissolved oxides from re-attaching, keeping them in suspension and allowing them to be easily dispersed by the mechanical action of the contact."

That's why I'm curious as to what your concern is.

Often times the material found after use of DeOxit is actually contaminant material that was present at then initial cleaning and has been loosened and is now seen on the contact surface.

If used according to the directions I am quite sure based on my own extensive experience with it (and "Cramolin Red" before Caig became the owner of the product line) that it does a superb job. Note that I have NO connection to the product, it's maker or the sellers I get it from other than as a satisfied customer.

deepee99 wrote:Is the oily (non-volatile) component of DeoxIt, the stuff that stays behind after the propellant evaporates, conductive? IIRC this has been discussed elsewhere. I am beginning to have doubts about this product. . . .

OK, there are many schools-of-thought on the various DeOxit products. First, a bit of history.

Back in the day, Cramolin made a product called "Cramolin Red" which was sold mostly in Europe and the Middle East, not so much in the US. Caig Labs developed a relationship with Cramolin to sell their products in the US, eventually selling them under the DeOxit name. Over a period of time, Cramolin and Caig fell out - badly. Caig developed, over time, the line of products they sell today. Cramolin is very nearly impossible to purchase in the US, and even Amazon re-directs to Caig.

When I was living and working in Saudi, I still pursued, to the extent possible, my hobby with vintage radios and audio, even finding some Dynaco stuff over there. BUT, I would go to the Electronics Souk quite regularly. Where, to my wondering eyes should appear, the entire line of Cramolin products. 10 Riyals ($2.70) for a 330 ml can, about the size of a can of Coke but a bit smaller. And, the rule in the Magic Kingdom is that all products sold therein had to be clearly labeled as to contents, no "proprietary" ingredients permitted:

Cramolin Red (some call the original DeOxit) = 95% hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon propellants, 5% Oleic Acid.
Oleic Acid, ladies and gentlemen and children of all ages, is a derivative of Olive Oil (about 40% - 70%) and a material used for the cleaning of brass clocks since time immemorial.
Oleic Acid is a food-grade ingredient, may be sent through the US mail and is non-explosive, kind to children and pets, and contributes regularly to NPR.
Oleic Acid as an active ingredient will continue to be 'active' until it is consumed in the reaction, or consumes the substrate.
Any de-oxidizing material, whether Oleic Acid, or something else, should be removed entirely once its work is done. There are lubricating cleaners, and there are post-cleaning rinses and lubricants where necessary.

If you wish to make your own, VM&P Naptha, better, Coleman Fuel (for the additional anti-corrosives) and OTC Oleic acid, mixed to the proper proportions and installed in a refillable pressurized can will do nicely. Generally, I try to keep to around 4% Oleic to avoid stick messes on clean-up.

It is unlikely that Caig is using still using Oleic acid today, as that cat has not seen the inside of a bag for a good number of years now, and Caig is quite strident about what its materials do NOT contain. But the principles are exactly the same. Active ingredients remain active until consumed, removed or until the substrate is consumed.

Jim McShane wrote:

If used according to the directions I am quite sure based on my own extensive experience with it (and "Cramolin Red" before Caig became the owner of the product line) that it does a superb job. Note that I have NO connection to the product, it's maker or the sellers I get it from other than as a satisfied customer.

Caig does not and never did own the Cramolin line. Cramolin is still alive and well (in Germany) and still selling products under their own name.

Peter W. wrote:

Jim McShane wrote:

If used according to the directions I am quite sure based on my own extensive experience with it (and "Cramolin Red" before Caig became the owner of the product line) that it does a superb job. Note that I have NO connection to the product, it's maker or the sellers I get it from other than as a satisfied customer.

Caig does not and never did own the Cramolin line. Cramolin is still alive and well (in Germany) and still selling products under their own name.

Okay - then before the Caig line appeared. Sorry. I stand corrected.

But the ownership had NOTHING to do with the original question. And as long as we are going to nit-pick - Cramolin was sold by "Old Colony Sound Labs" in the USA. Old Colony was part of the Audio Amateur/Glass Audio/Speaker Builder group owned by Ed Dell that was based in New Hampshire.

I like the 100% brush on kind for tube pins (LOL - comes in an undissolved GLASS bottle), eye dropper for tight spots and aerosol to get it into things like old scratchy wiper pots.  Like any chemical or coating , if one is indiscriminate with application then results will vary, usually for the worse.

Jim McShane wrote:

Peter W. wrote:

Jim McShane wrote:

If used according to the directions I am quite sure based on my own extensive experience with it (and "Cramolin Red" before Caig became the owner of the product line) that it does a superb job. Note that I have NO connection to the product, it's maker or the sellers I get it from other than as a satisfied customer.

Caig does not and never did own the Cramolin line. Cramolin is still alive and well (in Germany) and still selling products under their own name.

Okay - then before the Caig line appeared. Sorry. I stand corrected.

But the ownership had NOTHING to do with the original question. And as long as we are going to nit-pick - Cramolin was sold by "Old Colony Sound Labs" in the USA. Old Colony was part of the Audio Amateur/Glass Audio/Speaker Builder group owned by Ed Dell that was based in New Hampshire.

Yep, back in the day (mid 80's) I bought some Cramolin from Old Colony Sound Labs (they sold some cool stuff!) and the Cramolin came HIGHLY recommended by a mentor of mine who worked for NASA in the 60's -- great stuff.

I just wish I could still get Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon TF) -- excellent for cleaning and never ate plastic -- but ate the ozone layer they say.  That stuff was fantastic and expensive!

StevieRay wrote:

Jim McShane wrote:

Peter W. wrote:

Jim McShane wrote:

If used according to the directions I am quite sure based on my own extensive experience with it (and "Cramolin Red" before Caig became the owner of the product line) that it does a superb job. Note that I have NO connection to the product, it's maker or the sellers I get it from other than as a satisfied customer.

Caig does not and never did own the Cramolin line. Cramolin is still alive and well (in Germany) and still selling products under their own name.

Okay - then before the Caig line appeared. Sorry. I stand corrected.

But the ownership had NOTHING to do with the original question. And as long as we are going to nit-pick - Cramolin was sold by "Old Colony Sound Labs" in the USA. Old Colony was part of the Audio Amateur/Glass Audio/Speaker Builder group owned by Ed Dell that was based in New Hampshire.

Yep, back in the day (mid 80's) I bought some Cramolin from Old Colony Sound Labs (they sold some cool stuff!) and the Cramolin came HIGHLY recommended by a mentor of mine who worked for NASA in the 60's -- great stuff.

I just wish I could still get Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon TF) -- excellent for cleaning and never ate plastic -- but ate the ozone layer they say.  That stuff was fantastic and expensive!

More likely, Dupont's patent ran out on freon TF. Some old refrigerator and air-conditioner repairmen still have a black-market stash of that stuff around.

Freon TF was banned by the EPA due to it's negative impact on the Earth's ozone layer...although a greater known threat to our world appears to be cow farts. It is doubtful that the EPA will ban cows in our lifetime.

Kevin

OK then - considering the fact that the residue is completely non-conductive, I guess the only concern would be that too much accumulation could reduce conductivity.

Don't plan on losing any sleep over that though. I'd think most any such scenario would involve improper use of the product ... zzzzzzzzzzzz ...

PS ... I hear tell that DeOxit products can disappear on international flights!

(pass it on)

SPOILER ALERT:  It's apparently on the TSA's verbotin list. I've heard tell of folk finding cute little "no sir, we don't like it" cards in their luggage instead of the deoxit products.  

sKiZo wrote:OK then - considering the fact that the residue is completely non-conductive, I guess the only concern would be that too much accumulation could reduce conductivity.

Don't plan on losing any sleep over that though. I'd think most any such scenario would involve improper use of the product ... zzzzzzzzzzzz ...

PS ... I hear tell that DeOxit products can disappear on international flights!

(pass it on)

SPOILER ALERT:  It's apparently on the TSA's verbotin list. I've heard tell of folk finding cute little "no sir, we don't like it" cards in their luggage instead of the deoxit products.  

OK - I wrote it twice:

Oxide remover active ingredients, whatever they might be, will continue to react until:

a) The reactive materials in the solvent are used up (consumed)
b) The reactive substrate is consumed.
c) They are removed.

Whether or not they are conductive on their own, the salts created by their action are at least partially conductive. So, cutting to the chase, if one uses such a material, when done, it should be removed. And whether there should be some residual lubrication left behind is entirely a matter of the type and nature of the whatsit being cleaned.

As a complete aside, this is the reason that conventional RTV Silicon sealants should never be allowed within feet of electronic equipment. The curing agent is Acetic Acid (active ingredient in Vinegar) and no good at all for anything containing copper.

.

Of course they have a maximum temperature spec! What commercially available product of that type product doesn't?

DeOxit D-5 has a specified maximum temperature of 200 C or 392 F; DeOxit Gold GxL is rated to 310 C or 590 F. I don't know of ANY contact cleaning product/treating that is rated to withstand the direct heat of exposure to molten solder. So if you have to solder on a socket you applied D-5 or Gold GxL to you have to do something really remarkable - you have to clean it again!

I must confess I just don't understand the amount of animosity and the number of (mostly incorrect hearsay) aspersions cast against the DeOxit family of products (and not just on this forum or in this thread). What is it that is so odious about these products that it causes such a strong reaction? I have used the products successfully for as long as they have been on the market and I have never personally observed any situation caused by use of the products in any of the pieces of gear I've had contact with in all my years of exposure to them. So if someone here can post getails about a personal experience with a problem that was definitely caused by any of these Caig products I'd like to hear about it.

Again - I have no connection to Caig and their products except as a satisfied user of their products.

Finally, I'm sorry if this post came off as a rant...

.

PeterCapo wrote:That's fine, Jim, but there might also be an "x-factor."  Do we know, for instance, what it does turn into when overheated and how readily it can be cleaned off?  It needn't be a show stopper, but this is a reasonable question for which seeking input directly from the manufacturer would make sense for anyone concerned.

Reactions to Deoxit are not so different from other topics that people in this hobby engage in and have opinions about.  For a lot of folks in the hobby, there are all kinds of guesswork and opinions formed, based upon differing experiences, perceptions and varying levels of knowledge.  I don't know if it is always sheer, unreasoning animus against Deoxit that you have seen in your travels online.  Sometimes people make mistakes, and sometimes they just have questions that don't necessarily have ready answers.  Often enough, the only recourse is a "thought experiment."

Your input is, of course, valuable.  I also agree with you that if someone claims something, it would be helpful if they would elaborate on whatever experiences they have had that caused them to arrive at their opinion.

My experience with soldering on "DeOxited" sockets, jacks, etc. is that a repeat DeOxit cleaning removes anything left behind and gives you a fresh surface. I don't recall any deposits that were difficult to remove.

That's it!

On the road in an emergency I would get a bottle of alcohol at Walgreens and drizzle some in the troublesome pot. Seemed to work. I have since graduated and evolved to DeOx.