[Top] [All Lists]

Re[2]: [TowerTalk] Penetrox vs WD40/graphite

To: <>
Subject: Re[2]: [TowerTalk] Penetrox vs WD40/graphite
From: (K7LXC)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:26:09 EDT
In a message dated 98-04-24 09:42:25 EDT, writes:

> Yesterday, I received my Tennedyne T7 LPDA antenna, and looking in the 
>       manual that came with it, they have the following statement in bold 
>       print, and in all capital letters:
>       On the same page, the manual says "..... and we recommend the use of a
>       mixture of WD40 and graphite powder, or similar material, to lubricate
>       each and every tubing joint surface and screw hole during assembly as 
>       well as the end of the element being placed into the boom."
>       Therefore, if I follow the advice of what 99.99% of all hams are 
>       telling me (i.e. use Pentrox or similar antioxidant) and what common 
>       sense and the laws of physics dictate, I will be in direct violation 
>       of the K7LXC Prime Directive! Decisions, decisions.......

      Apparently the manufacturer had a problem once with some material that
may have been an antioxidant. Too liberal use may cause problems but I don't
know what the specifics of their blanket statement are.

      The mixture of WD-40 and graphite is approximately the same recipe as
other antioxidants - a non-conducting vehicle and small (metal) particles (is
graphite a conductor?). While I have NEVER seen this approach before and am a
little suspect of it's effectiveness, if the manufacturer says to do - I won't
discourage you. OTOH use of a more conventional antioxidant (NoAlOx, Penetrox, is ALWAYS encouraged and will help the longterm reliability of your
aluminum joint and do little or nothing to create problems. 

      Let us know what you think of the LP as an antenna.

Cheers,  Steve  K7LXC

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>