DeOxit & oleic acid
Ken
the price, I decided to homebrew the equivalent using some lab oleic
acid.
Various posters have suggested that the solvent is alcohol,
petroleum-based, and acetone.
I am running an experiment using isopropyl alcohol and Coleman Fuel as
the solvents. I don't think it can be acetone, because that would
dissolve many plastic parts.
I am using 10% solutions and old pennies. After a few hours, I am
seeing very little effect -- say, compared to what strong acid would
be doing or dip copper cleaner.
Those who use DeOxit: Do you see an immediate [visual] effect? Or
does an improvement in electrical contact come over a few hours or
days?
Ken
(to reply via email
remove "zz" from address)
Bill M
>
> Those who use DeOxit: Do you see an immediate [visual] effect? Or
> does an improvement in electrical contact come over a few hours or
> days?
DeOxit D5 seems to have changed greatly over the past 5 years or so. I
suspect that the Caig Co. has had to incorporate new formulas to
mitigate new shipping restrictions, etc. Plus there's some brand
labelling issues...The D5-6 product, for instance, is now "Power
Booster". No longer do they claim on the can that it "improves
conductivity, deoxidizes & cleans..." What they sold a few years ago as
"Power Booster" was their R5 product, separate from the D5.
On the surface (no pun intended) those may appear to be superficial
issues but in my inexperience of using the stuff over the past 7-8 years
each new can has been a less effective product than the last one and
quite frankly I don't plan to buy (or recommend) the DeOxit product again.
On the other hand, Caig has introduced a number of other new products in
the same time period...maybe in actual practice some of these will have
the same effectiveness of the old D5. Its too pricy for me, though, to
experiment with.
I've been using the oleic acid+naptha mix and it seems to work (for me)
at least as good as what costs several bux per ounce. To compare with
"DeOxit" would be difficult because its difficult to determine 'which'
DeOxit to compare to.
My own personal observations and opinions, btw. Caig has been known to
"go after" people who promote comparisons of their product with homebrew
mixes.
My 2c
-Bill
Ken
<dontspam...@coqui.net> wrote:
>I've been using the oleic acid+naptha mix and it seems to work (for me)
>at least as good as what costs several bux per ounce.
Hi, Bill.
Well, Coleman Fuel is almost indistinguishable from naphtha, so I am
testing with your concoction.
Do you see fast resuts? Or is this a remedy that needs to work in for
a few hours or days?
What concentration do you find most effective?
If Caig wants to sue me, I say, "Bring it."
Bill Turner
CHECK MY WEBSITE: www.dialcover.com
Bill Turner, excuse caps, short answers, stroke.
Business SASE, each order a copy of The Pocket Resource Guide.
Ken
wrote:
Aha! Great minds think alike. Tnx.
William Sommerwerck
> Or does an improvement in electrical contact come over a few
> hours or days?
I'm still using up my Cramolin. On nickel-plated surfaces, the effect is
instantaneous. The oxidation (???) comes off immediately when rubbed.
norml
This is from the era when tetraethyl lead was added to gasoline. Such gas
was colored red to assure the customers that they were getting what they
paid for when they ordered "high-test" gasoline.
Does anyone know what happened if you tried to burn "ethyl" in a vintage
Coleman appliance? (And why the later ones are able to use both fuels?)
Norm
Ken <cprst...@att.net> wrotf:
Alan Douglas
Last time I actually tested it, probably twenty years ago (it was
Cramolin I was using) I didn't see much visual effect on tarnished
brass, but touching ohmmeter probes lightly to the brass surface, the
effect of the Cramolin was instantly obvious. That was good enough for
me.
73, Alan
Jeffrey D Angus
Bill M wrote:
> My own personal observations and opinions, btw. Caig has been known to
> "go after" people who promote comparisons of their product with homebrew
> mixes.
Not really. the problem with Caig is when you concoct something
and then sell it claiming that it is "Exactly the same as."
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."
Tara Morice as Fran, from the movie "Strictly Ballroom"
Kim_J...@volcanomail.com
vintage
Coleman appliance?"
No, not from experience. I have a couple of Mountain Safety Research -
MSR - camping stoves that run on Coleman fuel or its equivalent. Old
MSR stoves could also run on kerosene with a change in one part. Newer
MSR stoves can run on gasoline bought at the gas station as well.
MSR says that if you try to use gas station gas in stoves not designed
to run on that fuel, the supply line, leading from the fuel bottle to
the burner, can get clogged. The supply line contains a steel cable
that looks much like a bicycle brake cable, or a throttle or clutch
cable on a motorcycle. I guess that it could be cleaned if it got
clogged, but I never attempted to test my theory.
I'm showing my age, but the current crop of gasoline neither looks nor
smells like the real gasoline that you could buy back in the 60s or
early 70s. The old stuff was orange. The current stuff is clear. It may
be the case that you can burn new gasoline in a stove designed to run
on Coleman fuel, with no problems at all. Repairing the stove could
hardly be expensive.
Best wishes.
Scott W. Harvey
<dontspam...@coqui.net> wrote:
>Ken wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Those who use DeOxit: Do you see an immediate [visual] effect? Or
>> does an improvement in electrical contact come over a few hours or
>> days?
The improvement in electrical contact is immediate. The visual effect,
if it happens at all, takes place over hours or days.
>
>DeOxit D5 seems to have changed greatly over the past 5 years or so. I
>suspect that the Caig Co. has had to incorporate new formulas to
>mitigate new shipping restrictions, etc. Plus there's some brand
>labelling issues...The D5-6 product, for instance, is now "Power
>Booster". No longer do they claim on the can that it "improves
>conductivity, deoxidizes & cleans..." What they sold a few years ago as
>"Power Booster" was their R5 product, separate from the D5.
I, too, have noticed this as well. I wonder what the difference is?
>
>On the surface (no pun intended) those may appear to be superficial
>issues but in my inexperience of using the stuff over the past 7-8 years
>each new can has been a less effective product than the last one and
>quite frankly I don't plan to buy (or recommend) the DeOxit product again.
I had a very dissapointing experience with DeOxit the other day....I
gave a pot a good squirt in a multiband transistor radio because it
was scratchy. It worked fine that night, but the next day when I tried
it the scratchiness was back. That's never happened before, and it
should not happen if the formula they are using now leaves a
protective coating like I have come to expect from DeOxit.
>
>On the other hand, Caig has introduced a number of other new products in
>the same time period...maybe in actual practice some of these will have
>the same effectiveness of the old D5. Its too pricy for me, though, to
>experiment with.
Caig seems to be doing an exceedingly poor job of explaining the
differences between the various products. I look on their web site and
I can't figure out why I should pick one over another....About the
only one whose purpose is well described is ProGold.
>
>I've been using the oleic acid+naptha mix and it seems to work (for me)
>at least as good as what costs several bux per ounce. To compare with
>"DeOxit" would be difficult because its difficult to determine 'which'
>DeOxit to compare to.
If the performance of Caig's product continues to decline as it has
been, I may go that route myself. At least I'll know then that the
formula hasn't been tweaked yet again.
>
>My own personal observations and opinions, btw. Caig has been known to
>"go after" people who promote comparisons of their product with homebrew
>mixes.
>
>My 2c
>-Bill
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AT THE EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE!
Instead, go to the following web page to get my real email address:
http://member.newsguy.com/~polezi/scottsaddy.htm
(This has been done because I am sick of SPAMMERS making my email unusable)
Terry
<Kim_J...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1114054742....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> "Does anyone know what happened if you tried to burn "ethyl" in a
> vintage
> Coleman appliance?"
>
> No, not from experience. I have a couple of Mountain Safety Research -
> MSR - camping stoves that run on Coleman fuel or its equivalent. Old
> MSR stoves could also run on kerosene with a change in one part. Newer
> MSR stoves can run on gasoline bought at the gas station as well.
>
Our automobile gas is unleaded. Gas station owner told us 'unofficially' to
use premium gasoline in our Coleman pressure lantern instead of
lantern/camping fuel and it works fine. I have used regular (lower octane)
gas and it also works fine!
Peter Wieck
norml wrote:
> Coleman fuel is indeed naphtha, which used to be called "white gas."
>
> This is from the era when tetraethyl lead was added to gasoline. Such
gas
> was colored red to assure the customers that they were getting what
they
> paid for when they ordered "high-test" gasoline.
>
> Does anyone know what happened if you tried to burn "ethyl" in a
vintage
> Coleman appliance? (And why the later ones are able to use both
fuels?)
>
> Norm
>
Norm: When gasoline went both unleaded and un-phosphored in the 70s,
Coleman, SVEA and others reprinted their directions to allow for any
low-test unleaded gasoline.
On the other hand, "nothing" happens when one burns leaded fuel in such
an appliance... to the appliance. However, lead compounds are pumped
into the immediate area in the products of combustion. Not a good thing
at all, most especially if one is cooking.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Peter Wieck
Saudi. The stick-on paper label says 5% Oleic Acid, 95% "volatile
hydrocarbons and propellant". Close enough for me when it comes to
formulating my own moving forward.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
David Stinson
Peter Wieck wrote:
> I still have some genuine Cramolin product that I brought back from
> Saudi. The stick-on paper label says 5% Oleic Acid, 95% "volatile
> hydrocarbons and propellant"....
I have a small tub of paste Cramolin.
I think the "hydrocarbons" in this must be something akin
to Vaseline(tm) or some sort of parafin, though I can't
imagine parafin would do contacts any good.
I used it on a balky variable capacitor contact, putting
a small dab of paste on the shaft and using a hair dryer
to "melt" it into the contact area. I don't know if that's
"proper" for the paste or not, but it worked. Comments?
Bill Sheppard
sell them?) They carried a big warning to use only pure (read Coleman)
fuel, as any contaminant would wreck the platinum catalyst. Would those
be usable on modern gas station gas? Bill(oc)
Peter Wieck
naptha. The residue is very slightly oily, not surprising as Oleic acid
is a "fatty acid".
There are several paste materials that I have used in the past, some
being rosin based, some being one-form-or-another acid based. Good old
fashioned plumbers paste flux is very acidic, especially when heated
and will take oxides off even very corroded stuff... but be EXTREMELY
careful of this material, almost to the point of never using it at all
as any residue will continue to attack anything it touches. I have used
it on very, very bad switch assemblies, but only if I could soak the
entire shebang in baking soda followed with distilled water afterwards.
But for that work, I still prefer some of the stronger automotive-style
spray contact cleaners that actually fizz green when hitting copper
oxides. Same caveat: Don't let it stay in for very long, and be
dead-sure to neutralize it afterwards.
In Saudi, I had access to a range of Cramolin products at around
$2.70/200ml in a spray can. The only one of the bunch that had anything
in it other than "some% mineral oils, some% volatile hydrocarbons and
propellants" was the "Contact-Clean" stuff that contained 5% oleic
acid. The stuff was all made in Germany, but had the Saudi-required
paper stick-on labels for local sale.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Peter Wieck
(the modern ones use platinum). But either of those metals will combine
with lead, rendering their catalytic action intert. So, if it will not
destroy the catalytic converter in your car, it is fine in those
heaters.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Ken
>Those who use DeOxit: Do you see an immediate [visual] effect? Or
>does an improvement in electrical contact come over a few hours or
>days?
After two days in two 10% oleic acid solutions (solvents are IPA and
Coleman Fuel), the tarnished pennies are both showing oxide removal.
Do you leave the residue on the contacts? Or do you remove it with
solvent after a few days?
Peter Wieck
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Ken G.
DaveW
> After two days in two 10% oleic acid solutions (solvents are IPA and
> Coleman Fuel), the tarnished pennies are both showing oxide removal.
>
> Do you leave the residue on the contacts? Or do you remove it with
> solvent after a few days?
>
>
> Ken
> (to reply via email
> remove "zz" from address)
You used India Pale Ale as a solvent? Maybe the pennies are just getting
over the hangover!
Regards,
DAve
Steven Dinius
Steven Dinius
Caldwell at A-Gem Supply (CRC stuff is thought)...
"Bill M" <dontspam...@coqui.net> wrote in message
news:116dd91...@corp.supernews.com...
Tom Adkins
> The TV shop guy in Payette doesn't use that stuff at all nor is it sold in
> Caldwell at A-Gem Supply (CRC stuff is thought)...
Steven,
Caig De Oxit is one of the most widely used contact cleaners in the IT industry, in
it's various formulations(among others). The TV shop guy may not be aware of it as
it's pretty pricy for Joe Average. It's very available. CRC makes a very good line of
solvents, including contact cleaner, electronic degreaser, brake cleaner, all the way
up to Carburator Cleaner (really nasty stuff). I've used many CRC products. I'm
looking at a can of CRC Automotive Electrical Contact Cleaner as I type this.
Something I've wondered but never looked in to is, how different is CRC Automotive
Contact Cleaner from Brake-Clean? It seems to smell, and taste (you don't want to
know) and act the same, at least on auto electrical. AECC evaporates faster but I've
used Brake-Clean on radio pots in a pinch with no ill results. I've also used both on
radio pots with good results, except for the lubriacnt layer left by De-Oxit and its
CRC counterpart "Electrical Contact Cleaner" not "Automotive ECC".
Bill M
I dunno about the credibility of some TV-Toaster Man in Caldwell, Idaho
(who didn't suggest a better alternative) but ...both Caig and CRC are
obtuse and deliberately excusive in their descriptions of their
multiplicity of products. You can't simply say "Deoxit" or "CRC"
anymore without zeroing in on exactly WHICH DeOxit or CRC.
You heard my anti-Caig rant in a post a few days ago. Now I'll do CRC.
I once had their stuff melt a bunch of RCA jacks on a simple VCR cleaning.
Well, duh, and shoot, I don't know 'which' CRC it was and thats where I
goofed. They have, and I'm sure Caig does too, some very effective
products but you have to know how to choose them. Same applies to the
Green/Blue toilet cleaner stuff that is often recommended for chassis
cleaning. One works well for cleaning...the other will eat off all the
plating.
I suppose that result is to be expected from the best of full-line
distributors if we don't do our own homework.
-Bill
Steven Dinius
of him. A-Gem sells no toaster supplies, but if you want to replace all
manner of belts from in-stock. buy dial lamps, 2200uF 63V radial capacitors
or even Russound zonal amps and the occasional harman/kardon unit or
HDTV/satellite TV/security equipment and buy from a store that has been
there since you got out of high school NOT Radio Shack,.this is your place.
I spent 14 dollars for the twinpack from Radio Shack. A piss ant wouldn't
get much from that trying to clean his Chivvies 8-track radio. I let the
sextogenarian fella at the TV shop who's done this for 40 years use his. He
says it might not last long and I believe him and live with it. He doesn't
like to do stereo equipment any more but he helps me learn things hands on
sometimes. It's damned near impossible to do that here now and I had one guy
retire before he could go bankrupt already. Sending things to the two big
warranty service shops in Boise is enough to make me feel ill.
"Bill M" <dontspam...@coqui.net> wrote in message
news:116jk5g...@corp.supernews.com...
ly...@dsmwlaw.com
As litigation counsel to CAIG Laboratories, Inc., we have been
authorized to prepare and disseminate this message to this newsgroup.
Recent newsgroup discussions have focused on certain CAIG products.
Specifically, there have been postings concerning CAIG's DeoxIT brand
cleaner (www.caig.com). As many of you have noted, DeoxIT brand
cleaner is highly effective at cleaning, enhancing, protecting and
rejuvenating electrical connections.
The recent discussions of DeoxIT brand cleaner have involved ways to
reproduce DeoxIT or ways to simulate DeoxIT using available materials.
In the context of one person's postings, it was necessary for CAIG to
request that the individual cease and desist. That matter is being
resolved without the necessity of litigation and with no monetary
component.
CAIG appreciates that enthusiasts at rec.antiques.radio+phono approve
of the efficacy of DeoxIT to the point that they are willing to attempt
its reproduction. However, CAIG must remain watchful to assure that
consumers do not become confused about the source or quality of its
products such as DeoxIT brand cleaner due to false statements of fact,
or improper use of its trademark.
CAIG wants the participants in rec.antiques.radio+phono to understand
its position, so it can avoid any conflicts with persons discussing its
products, or with those simply seeking to innovate.
CAIG has never published the ingredients for its products sold under
the trademarks DeoxIT, ProGold, PreservIT and CaiLube MCL. The
formulas for these products are closely guarded trade secrets known
only to a select few, much like the formula for a soft drink would be.
CAIG has applied for a federal trademark registration in the mark
DeoxIT, and has for a long time owned a common law trademark in DeoxIT.
To protect its trademark rights, CAIG must make sure that people do
not use the mark in a way that precludes the ability of DeoxIT to serve
as an indicator of source or quality to consumers. To this end, CAIG
must pursue persons who say or suggest that they are selling DeoxIT
cleaner, when they are not. Likewise, CAIG must pursue persons who
make factual statements about the composition of DeoxIT cleaner that
are false. In legal terms, a "false designation of origin"
"false or misleading description of fact," or "false or
misleading representation of fact" violates the federal Lanham Act
(15 U.S.C. ยง1125 [http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.php]) as
well as many state trademark, unfair competition and false advertising
laws.
However, except for safety concerns with mixing chemicals, CAIG does
not object in principle to people attempting to manufacture products to
rival DeoxIT brand cleaner, or its other products DeoxIT, ProGold,
PreservIT and CaiLube MCL. And CAIG does not object to persons freely
discussing what works in terms of cleaners. Likewise, CAIG does not
seek to limit speech or innovation.
As long as others do not pass off their products as DeoxIT, do not make
false or misleading statements when comparing their products to DeoxIT,
or use CAIG's trademark DeoxIT improperly to capture interest and
drive sales of others' products, there is no problem.
For those interested in reading further concerning advertising, the
United States Federal Trade Commission, www.ftc.gov, publishes some
handy guides. One such guide, written in plain English, is found at
www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/dotcom/index.html.
CAIG thanks you all for the opportunity to provide quality products
relevant to the interests of those participating in the
rec.antiques.radio+phono newsgroup.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Lytle, Esq.
DUCKOR SPRADLING METZGER & WYNNE
A Law Corporation
401 West A Street, Suite 2400
San Diego, CA 92101
Bill Jeffrey
perhaps take your post seriously. Until then - well, like I said - BITE ME.
Bill
-------------------
Bill Turner
QUESTION KNOWS WHO HE IS.
CHECK MY WEBSITE: www.dialcover.com
Bill Turner, excuse caps, short answers, stroke.
Business SASE, each order a copy of The Pocket Resource Guide.
Omer Suleimanagich
upset that it wasn't a CAIG product, but a GC product. I felt that I bought
something misrepresented, especially since it doesn't even have Cremolin in
it!
Does someone know what "DE OX ID" stands for?
Omer
<ly...@dsmwlaw.com> wrote in message
news:1114472732....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
John Goller, k9uwa
says...
>
>
>When your header shows any reputble ISP as the originator, I will
>perhaps take your post seriously. Until then - well, like I said - BITE ME.
>
>Bill
looks pretty legit to me Bill....
Old Douglas W. Lytle is listed as one of the attorneys on this webpage...
http://dsmwlaw.com/members_firm/
he probably makes his living searching internet for any occurrences of
any of the products and companies that his firm represents...
all I wish is that one of the Caig guys would tell us exactly which
product is to be used in what application..... the stuff on the website
is too "Wordy" ....
personally I use an Elcheapo cleaner to wash to parts down... one that
totally flashes off like that Big Bath stuff that AES sells for too
much money... and then a short shot of DeOxit ... have both the Pro-Gold
and the Red can D5 ... not sure I can see any difference between
the gold and red?... other than the price..
John k9uwa
Jeffrey D Angus
Bill Turner wrote:
> IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SOMEONE IN THE GROUP HAS A LOOSE LIP. THE GUY IN
> QUESTION KNOWS WHO HE IS.
Well, considering YOU were the one that YOUR tit in the wringer
last time, it seems only reasonable that YOU would be the one to
whine to Caig about, "What about them?"
After all, that is your standard approach. You bitch and moan
about Mark Oppat "hawking his wares" every chance you get.
Omer Suleimanagich
topic.............EVERYBODY!
I could care less what people think about Bill and what Bill thinks of
others.
The reason I'm here is because of ALL of your postings!
This is how I learn.
After reading the threat letter from Caig's attorneys and the reaction that
it has caused on this NG, I strongly doubt I will continue to use their
product!
Omer
"Jeffrey D Angus" <jan...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:426DCE14...@socal.rr.com...
Peter
"Bill Jeffrey" <wjeff...@alum.DOTmit.edu> wrote in message
news:xJhbe.84232$A31.29652@fed1read03...
> When your header shows any reputble ISP as the originator, I will perhaps
> take your post seriously. Until then - well, like I said - BITE ME.
>
> Bill
Hehe, Google Groups :-). Everyone has to start somewhere.
Is there such a thing as a reputible lawyer? The Marx Brothers couldn't have
thought up a better name for a law firm than
Duckor Spradling Metzger & Wynne.
Peter
Bill Turner
Bill Turner
William Sommerwerck
It refers to the unconscious basis of the bovine mind.
David Stinson
Peter wrote:
> Is there such a thing as a reputible lawyer? The Marx Brothers couldn't have
> thought up a better name for a law firm than
> Duckor Spradling Metzger & Wynne.
NPR's "Dewey, Cheatem & Howe"
and my personal lawyers: "Fumble, Stumble, Bumble and Drool."
John Goller, k9uwa
says...
>
>
>> Does someone know what "DE OX ID" stands for?
>
It is as close to the name DeOxit as GC could get and get away with
selling it... I imagine that there probably was a law suit over
that one..... think that would make more sense than some lawyer
bitching at people in our newsgroup... personally I have tried
the GC product and it ain't shit compared to the real DeOxit...
John k9uwa
jim rozen
Hunga Dunger, Hunga Dunger, Hunga Dunger and McCormick.
"ya left out a hungadunga. The most important one!'
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
Uncle Peter
"John Goller, k9uwa" <k9uwa...@THISarrl.netSTUFF> wrote in message
news:R%rbe.16775$c24.7939@attbi_s72...
And an entirely different formulation. The product intentionally is
misleading. You'd think Craig's time would be better spend going
after commercial look-a-likes instead of small time hobbyists.
Pete
Bruce Mercer
> perhaps take your post seriously. Until then - well, like I said - BITE
ME.
>
> Bill
Bill, REALLY!!! Is that any way to talk to an Esquire?
:-)
Stephanie Weil
ly...@dsmwlaw.com wrote:
> Dear Participants in the rec.antiques.radio+phono newsgroup:
> *bla bla bla* legalese mumbo-jumbo
The person's not selling the stuff under your client's brand. I haven't
seen ANYONE here claim that their stuff is the same as what your client
sells.
--
Stephanie Weil
New York City, U.S.A.
Stephanie Weil
> and my personal lawyers: "Fumble, Stumble, Bumble and Drool."
Flywheel, Schyster und Flywheel. ^_^
Brenda Ann
"Stephanie Weil" <step...@gordsven.com.NOSPAM.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnd6tq3v.n...@home3.gordsven.com...
My favorite has always been Dewey, Cheatham and Howe..
Bill Sheppard
>Flywheel, Schyster und Flywheel. ^_^
>-
Quagmeyer, Dreckham and Frump.
oc
Phil B
make factual statements about the composition of DeoxIT cleaner that
false, but I'm sure a good lawyer can! Does this imply that CAIG will
not pursue persons who make factual statements about the composition of
DeoxIT cleaner that
are TRUE? If so, you guys will be safe from being pursued if you can
factually state the real composition.
Phil B
"Stephanie Weil" <step...@gordsven.com.NOSPAM.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnd6tq18.n...@home3.gordsven.com...
BH
> In article <Qhrbe.1253$fW1.1252@trnddc02>, David Stinson wrote:
>
>>and my personal lawyers: "Fumble, Stumble, Bumble and Drool."
>
>
> Flywheel, Schyster und Flywheel. ^_^
>
Or Johnny Carson's lawyers...Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe.
Brian McAllister
John,
In my memory, GC was there first. You are right about the Caig
product working better. IMHO.
Brian McAllister
Sarasota, Florida
email bkm at oldtech dot net a...@hope.thespambots.die
Phil B
products, current and discontinued. Here are two of interest.
"Cramolin Sprays"
http://shopping.netsuite.com/807
Discontinued
FREON TF 75.0%
Difluoroethane (specifc name), DYMEL 152 (common name) 20%
Cramolin Liquid R100L(specific name), R100L (common name) for R-5 =
5.0%.
or
Cramolin Liquid B100L (specific name), B100L (common name), for B-5 =
5%.
"DeoxIT Power Booster, D5S Sprays"
http://shopping.netsuite.com/906
PETROLEUM NAPHTHA = 75%
HYDROCARBON PROPELLANT: = 20%
ISOBUTANE
PROPANE
Power Booster D100L TRADE SECRET = 5%
So Cramolin has 5% of either R100L or B100L. DeoxIT has 5% D100L
According to Peter we know what R100L or B100L is. DeoxIT has D100L.
Wonder what the differences are between the R, B, and D prefixes? They
all are designated -100L.
Phil B
"Peter Wieck" <pf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114087386....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I still have some genuine Cramolin product that I brought back from
> Saudi. The stick-on paper label says 5% Oleic Acid, 95% "volatile
> hydrocarbons and propellant". Close enough for me when it comes to
> formulating my own moving forward.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA
>
John Goller, k9uwa
>
>
I like
Nukem, Dukem & Dickem ....esquire or course!
Maybe we should put DeOxit & oleic acid and the words Same As
in every post we make to the newsgroup.... that should drive the
Goggle Search for Deoxit totall nutso in short order.....
John k9uwa
Phil B
the 3 Stooges in one of their movies.
Phil B
"BH" <radio...@zzgbronline.com> wrote in message
news:ktCdnfxQkay...@gbronline.com...
BH
> Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe predated Carson. That lawfirm was staffed by
> the 3 Stooges in one of their movies.
>
>
>
Now that you mention it, I do seem to remember from the Stooges.
Michael A. Terrell
I sent an e-mail to GC asking if they could tell me when DE-OX-ID hit
the market but they haven't had time to reply yet. Does anyone have any
early '70s GC catalogs?
I think DE-OX-ID was around in the mid '70s when they sent TV shops
in my area sample kits of new tuner and contact cleaners.
*****************************************************************
According to the US Patent and tradmark Office Deoxit came much
later, in 1990.
*****************************************************************
Word Mark DEOXIT
Goods and Services IC 003. US 001 004 006 050 051 052. G & S:
Contact/connector cleaner, enhancer, lubricant and preservative. FIRST
USE: 19900202. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19900202
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78508377
Filing Date October 29, 2004
Current Filing Basis 1A;1B
Original Filing Basis 1A;1B
Owner (APPLICANT) Mark Lohkemper CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 12200 Thatcher
Ct Poway CALIFORNIA 92064
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
*****************************************************************
Thank you for your request. Here are the latest results from the TARR
web server. <http://tarr.uspto.gov>
This page was generated by the TARR system on 2005-04-26 17:58:14 ET
Serial Number: 78508377
Registration Number: (NOT AVAILABLE)
Mark
(words only): DEOXIT
Standard Character claim: Yes
Current Status: Newly filed application, not yet assigned to an
examining attorney.
Date of Status: 2004-11-09
Filing Date: 2004-10-29
Transformed into a National Application: No
Registration Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
Register: Principal
Law Office Assigned: (NOT AVAILABLE)
If you are the applicant or applicant's attorney and have questions
about this file, please contact the Trademark Assistance Center at
TrademarkAss...@uspto.gov
<mailto:TrademarkAss...@uspto.gov>
Current Location: M5R -TMO Law Office 114 - Legal Instruments Examiner
Date In Location: 2005-04-15
LAST APPLICANT(S)/OWNER(S) OF RECORD
1. Mark Lohkemper
Address:
Mark Lohkemper
12200 Thatcher Ct
Poway, CA 92064
United States
Legal Entity Type: Corporation
State or Country of Incorporation: California
Phone Number: 858-486-4535
Fax Number: 858-486-8398
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES
International Class: 003
Contact/connector cleaner, enhancer, lubricant and preservative
First Use Date: 1990-02-02
First Use in Commerce Date: 1990-02-02
Basis: 1(a)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
(NOT AVAILABLE)
MADRID PROTOCOL INFORMATION
(NOT AVAILABLE)
PROSECUTION HISTORY
2005-03-24 - Applicant amendment prior to exam entered
2005-03-24 - TEAS Preliminary Amendment Received
2004-11-09 - New Application Entered In Tram
CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION
Correspondent
MARK LOHKEMPER
12200 THATCHER CT
POWAY, CA 92064-6876
Phone Number: 858-486-4535
Fax Number: 858-486-8398
*****************************************************************
--
Former professional electron wrangler.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Phil B
PETROLEUM SOLVENT and CARBON DIOXIDE as the ingredients. No 5% "trade
secret" magic ingredient.
http://www.emedco.com/emed2/resource/msds/msds_view.asp?pd=ca&pf=cgmgc
Material Safety Data Sheet
Name DE-OX-ID MSDS cgmgc
Company GC ELECTRONICS
Ingredients
Cas: 64742-89-8
Name: VM ANDamp; P NAPHTHA
% Wt: ANDlt; 62
Other REC Limits: NONE RECOMMENDED
OSHA PEL: NOT ESTABLISHED
ACGIH TLV: NOT ESTABLISHED
------------------------------
Cas: 8042-47-5
RTECS #: PY8047000
Name: MINERAL OIL, WHITE
% Wt: ANDlt; 10
Other REC Limits: NONE RECOMMENDED
OSHA PEL: NOT ESTABLISHED
ACGIH TLV: NOT ESTABLISHED
------------------------------
Cas: 8008-20-6
RTECS #: OA5500000
Name: ALIPHATIC PETROLEUM SOLVENT
% Wt: 25
Other REC Limits: NONE RECOMMENDED
OSHA PEL: NOT ESTABLISHED
ACGIH TLV: NOT ESTABLISHED
------------------------------
Cas: 124-38-9
RTECS #: FF6400000
Name: CARBON DIOXIDE
% Wt: 3
Other REC Limits: NONE RECOMMENDED
OSHA PEL: 5000 PPM
ACGIH TLV: 5000PPM/30000STEL;96
Phil B
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:426F1338...@earthlink.net...
Jeffrey D Angus
Phil B wrote:
> The lawyer said "Likewise, CAIG must pursue persons who
> make factual statements about the composition of DeoxIT cleaner that
> are false." First I don't know how to make a factual statement that is
> false, but I'm sure a good lawyer can!
Is everyone, with a couple of notable exceptions, on this news
group illiterate?
Re-read the center portion of the sentence, "about the composition
of DeOxit cleaner".
For example, "DeOxit is composed of 5% oleic acid, 90% naphtha and
5% cat urine." Representing that as the factual composition of
DeOxit will definitely get their (Caig's) attention.
On the other hand, something like, "Based on the MSDS information
for DeOxit, the active ingredient appears to be 5% oleic acid. I
have mixed Oleic acid with Naphtha in a 1:19 ratio and have had
fairly good results cleaning contacts with it." Is within the
guidelines Caig has requested for use of their registered trade names.
Selling home-brew contact cleaner. Stating, "I sell Oleic acid. If you
mix it 1:19 with naphtha, it is identical to DeOxit." Will get you a
cease and desist letter from Caig's lawyers.
Again, stating, "I have Oleic acid for sale. If you mix this with
Naphtha in a 1:19 ratio it works fairly well as a contact cleaner."
This makes everyone over at Caig happy with the presentation.
What is so damn difficult about this?
Carter Grabarczyk
NPR?...you're a little late. Dewey et al goes back to the Three Stooges
in the late 30s and they probably got it from vaudeville before that...
Peter Wieck
suppliers and/or levels of refinement in specific ingredient. For
instance, there are several grades of kerosene all of which are
essentially the same basic hydrocarbon with greater or lesser degrees
of other ingredients/contaminants such as free carbon or paraffin (the
wax). Note that Brits call kerosene "paraffin", at least in the old
movies.
For my mix in Saudi, I used pharmaceutical-grade Oleic acid... because
I could get it at the local pharmacy in small quantities. I am sure
that that would have a different listing in the tables than
industrial-grade Oleic acid used in the metal finishing industry.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Bill Turner
Phil B
I don't know anything about the literacy level of this group. Most posts
are understandable and clear enough. That's enough literacy to satisfy
me. As for my comment about the lawyer's statement, I was focusing on
the logic of the wording. The dictionary defines "factual" as an
adjective meaning "based on fact". I think everyone knows what "true"
and "false" mean. So in your highly literate opinion, how does one make
a statement that is "based on fact" AND is "false"?
I suspect that "factual" actually has a somewhat different
interpretation in the world of law and legal jargon. If so, mr. lawyer
is just doing what lawyers are prone to do and shrouding the issue in a
cloud of important-sounding legalese to scare people away.
As for the real issue here. DeOxIt is not patented so there is no
protection against anyone selling an equivalent formula unless it can be
proven that someone deliberately stole their trade secret formula.
Inferring a similar formula from information published on their web site
and printed on the can is not deliberately stealing a trade-secret
formula.
"DeOxIt" is a trademark so there IS protection against using that name
on a competing product.
Phil B
"Jeffrey D Angus" <jan...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_rGbe.21349$JB....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
jim rozen
>
>The MSDS for DE-OX-ID lists P NAPHTHA, WHITE MINERAL OIL, ALIPHATIC
>PETROLEUM SOLVENT and CARBON DIOXIDE as the ingredients. No 5% "trade
>secret" magic ingredient.
>http://www.emedco.com/emed2/resource/msds/msds_view.asp?pd=ca&pf=cgmgc
<snip publicly available msds data>
Uh oh. You just revealed the secret formula. Now *you're*
gonna get some a$$hole lawyer sending you nasty notes!
:)
Scott W. Harvey
Jeff,
First, No one here has made any such statement in this thread relating
to the composition of DeoxIT. The only piece that mentioned
composition was Peter's, and it was clear that he was talking about a
German can of Cramolin with a clearly printed Saudi-Government
mandated chemical composition label on it, which he quoted verbatim.
Someone (and you know who it is) got a little loosey-goosey with his
verbage pertaining to comparisons of his product to DeoxIT a while
back, but that situation was fixed when Caig's lawyers intervened.
That was LAST YEAR. No such incident has been repeated here since that
time, so there was no reason for their counsel to post their windy
drivel here.
Second, it is not possible to make a factual statement that is false.
That on its face is a non-sequitur.
It IS possible to make false statement that is REPRESENTED as fact,
which is PROBABLY what the law clerk who probably wrote this up meant
to say. People in the legal field, of all fields, surely must know the
importance of exact language, so this is quite a gaffe. That's why
people here are homing in on it.
To summarize, here is what the lawyers said:
1. It's OK to try to mix up your own batches of cleaner.
2. Even though what you mix up may be identical in composition (or
not) to DeoxIT, it is not a Caig product and thus is NOT DeoxIT.
3. If you say that any Non-Caig cleaner is DeoxIT, you're gonna be in
a whole heap 'o trouble boy, so don't mess with us.
That's it, the whole thing, in a nutshell. That it took several
paragraphs of winded, stilted prose for a lawyer to say it is one of
the reasons why people hate lawyers.
-Scott
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AT THE EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE!
Instead, go to the following web page to get my real email address:
http://member.newsguy.com/~polezi/scottsaddy.htm
(This has been done because I am sick of SPAMMERS making my email unusable)
Bill Turner
Bill Sheppard
Bill(oc)
Peter Wieck
>>So in your highly literate opinion, how does one make
a statement that is "based on fact" AND is "false"? <<
Any politician is past-master at this art. But if you need to be
clubbed over the head with it, let's take two contemporary examples:
ANWR: A reserve of 10.4 billion barrels of "technically recoverable
oil".
Fact: That's a lot of oil.
Fact: Getting that oil south will reduce US dependence on "foreign"
oil.
Fact: That amount of oil = less than one percent (1%) of the world's
reserves of "technically recoverable oil". (10.4 billion barrels vs.
1092 billion barrels)
Fact: Even at 100% exploitation, that reserve will last the us (at
present consumption) about 570 days, that number being the 'average
expectation' from the DOI. That it will take ~20 years to recover at
the anticipated maximum rate is beside the point.
Fact: It will take 3-5 years and $3-5 billion to get it south, and then
only at about 1.4 million barrels per day absolute maximum.
http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm Some nice charts are attached that
show our dependence on foreign oil.
The implication that opening ANWR to drilling will solve our immediate
problems is patently false. But that is precisely the bill-of-goods
being sold to the American Public. And this is without reference to
whether it is "good" or not to do.
Then, there are the "facts" spewed by _both sides_ on Social Security.
Generally, engineers have a difficult time with the perfidy of the
English Language.... And I use that word with great specificity.
Sorry to get political on this, but sometimes a big honking example of
the obvious is necessary.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Brian McAllister
>Note that Brits call kerosene "paraffin"
pronounced parraFEE
And they call mineral oil "liquid paraffin"
What we call paraffin, is known as "paraffin wax"
Brian McAllister
>Note that Brits call kerosene "paraffin"
pronounced parraFEEN
Scott W. Harvey
wrote:
>SCOTT: YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE.
>
ARE YOU REFERRING TO ME, BILL?
Bill Turner
Scott W. Harvey
-Scott
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:40:06 -0500, dial...@webtv.net (Bill Turner)
wrote:
>YES !
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AT THE EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE!
Clive
"Brian McAllister" <Sun...@Blandings.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:gjf071t45sb1ecn3m...@4ax.com...
> On 27 Apr 2005 04:59:47 -0700, "Peter Wieck" <pf...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Note that Brits call kerosene "paraffin"
>
> pronounced parraFEEN
>
Perhaps in the plummy 'Sarf' of England, but we English Northeners pronounce
it ParaFIN
> What we call paraffin, is known as "paraffin wax"
Are we talking petroleum jelly here ? Paraffin wax is not a word I've
used......
//Clive.
Haggis
On 28-Apr-2005, "Clive" <cas...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > What we call paraffin, is known as "paraffin wax"
>
> Are we talking petroleum jelly here ? Paraffin wax is not a word I've
> used......
>
> //Clive.
Taken from a UK website on candlemaking.......
PARAFFIN WAX A very essential part of candlemaking! You can't make candles
without wax!! I've been gone so long, I don't remember :-)
Haggis.
Clive
"Haggis telus.net>" <hamishg@<remove> wrote in message
news:kb7ce.10983$tg1.8802@edtnps84...
>
>
> Taken from a UK website on candlemaking.......
> PARAFFIN WAX A very essential part of candlemaking! You can't make candles
> without wax!! I've been gone so long, I don't remember :-)
> Haggis.
You are probably right, candle making is not an activity I have oft
participated in :-)
Michael A. Terrell
>
> You are probably right, candle making is not an activity I have oft
> participated in :-)
Paraffin is also used as "Canning wax" to seal air out of canning
jars. Its handy as a source of wax to seal tuning slugs in radios. Hold
a clean, hot soldering iron over the hole and touch the corner of the
piece of wax to the iron and let it drip in the hole. I used to keep a
small box of Canning wax in my tool box
Sparky
anything made by members of this group is just guessing.
It would appear that this guys only problem is that it is being compared
to deoxit. Unless people are actually calling it deoxit there can be no
harm done
<ly...@dsmwlaw.com> wrote in message
news:1114472732....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Dear Participants in the rec.antiques.radio+phono newsgroup:
As litigation counsel to CAIG Laboratories, Inc., we have been
authorized to prepare and disseminate this message to this newsgroup.
Recent newsgroup discussions have focused on certain CAIG products.
Specifically, there have been postings concerning CAIG's DeoxIT brand
cleaner (www.caig.com). As many of you have noted, DeoxIT brand
cleaner is highly effective at cleaning, enhancing, protecting and
rejuvenating electrical connections.
The recent discussions of DeoxIT brand cleaner have involved ways to
reproduce DeoxIT or ways to simulate DeoxIT using available materials.
In the context of one person's postings, it was necessary for CAIG to
request that the individual cease and desist. That matter is being
resolved without the necessity of litigation and with no monetary
component.
CAIG appreciates that enthusiasts at rec.antiques.radio+phono approve
of the efficacy of DeoxIT to the point that they are willing to attempt
its reproduction. However, CAIG must remain watchful to assure that
consumers do not become confused about the source or quality of its
products such as DeoxIT brand cleaner due to false statements of fact,
or improper use of its trademark.
CAIG wants the participants in rec.antiques.radio+phono to understand
its position, so it can avoid any conflicts with persons discussing its
products, or with those simply seeking to innovate.
CAIG has never published the ingredients for its products sold under
the trademarks DeoxIT, ProGold, PreservIT and CaiLube MCL. The
formulas for these products are closely guarded trade secrets known
only to a select few, much like the formula for a soft drink would be.
CAIG has applied for a federal trademark registration in the mark
DeoxIT, and has for a long time owned a common law trademark in DeoxIT.
To protect its trademark rights, CAIG must make sure that people do
not use the mark in a way that precludes the ability of DeoxIT to serve
as an indicator of source or quality to consumers. To this end, CAIG
must pursue persons who say or suggest that they are selling DeoxIT
cleaner, when they are not. Likewise, CAIG must pursue persons who
make factual statements about the composition of DeoxIT cleaner that
are false. In legal terms, a "false designation of origin"
"false or misleading description of fact," or "false or
misleading representation of fact" violates the federal Lanham Act
(15 U.S.C. ยง1125 [http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.php]) as
well as many state trademark, unfair competition and false advertising
laws.
However, except for safety concerns with mixing chemicals, CAIG does
not object in principle to people attempting to manufacture products to
rival DeoxIT brand cleaner, or its other products DeoxIT, ProGold,
PreservIT and CaiLube MCL. And CAIG does not object to persons freely
discussing what works in terms of cleaners. Likewise, CAIG does not
seek to limit speech or innovation.
As long as others do not pass off their products as DeoxIT, do not make
false or misleading statements when comparing their products to DeoxIT,
or use CAIG's trademark DeoxIT improperly to capture interest and
drive sales of others' products, there is no problem.
For those interested in reading further concerning advertising, the
United States Federal Trade Commission, www.ftc.gov, publishes some
handy guides. One such guide, written in plain English, is found at
www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/dotcom/index.html.
CAIG thanks you all for the opportunity to provide quality products
relevant to the interests of those participating in the
rec.antiques.radio+phono newsgroup.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Lytle, Esq.
DUCKOR SPRADLING METZGER & WYNNE
A Law Corporation
401 West A Street, Suite 2400
San Diego, CA 92101
Brian McAllister
wrote:
>
>"Brian McAllister" <Sun...@Blandings.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:gjf071t45sb1ecn3m...@4ax.com...
>> On 27 Apr 2005 04:59:47 -0700, "Peter Wieck" <pf...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Note that Brits call kerosene "paraffin"
>>
>> pronounced parraFEEN
>>
>
>Perhaps in the plummy 'Sarf' of England, but we English Northeners pronounce
>it ParaFIN
>
>
>//Clive.
>
Actually, my experience of that pronounciation is from even farther
south, 'Sarf Efrica'.
Brian McAllister
wrote:
>Are we talking petroleum jelly here ?
Americans call that 'petroleum jelly' or sometimes 'petrolatum'.
Stephanie Weil
> Americans call that 'petroleum jelly' or sometimes 'petrolatum'.
Or just Vaseline.
--
Stephanie Weil
New York City, U.S.A.
Haggis
On 3-May-2005, Stephanie Weil <step...@gordsven.com.NOSPAM.COM> wrote:
> > Americans call that 'petroleum jelly' or sometimes 'petrolatum'.
>
> Or just Vaseline.
Have to agree with Stephanie - it's more often called "Vaseline", in
everyday conversation, in the US and Canada than any of the above. Even
"Aspirin" has become generic in many countries. I just can't imagine asking
(as a frugal Scotsman :-)) for acetylsalicylic acid tablets when I go to the
drugstore. Besides which, I can't pronounce it :-).
I don't think I've often heard anything other than "Kleenex" used when
tissues are asked for, either. (of the type used for nose blowing anyway
:-)) .
One man's opinion. Cheers! Haggis.
jim menning
> Have to agree with Stephanie - it's more often called "Vaseline", in
> everyday conversation, in the US and Canada than any of the above.
> Even
> "Aspirin" has become generic in many countries. I just can't
> imagine asking
> (as a frugal Scotsman :-)) for acetylsalicylic acid tablets when I
> go to the
> drugstore. Besides which, I can't pronounce it :-).
"Aspirin" in the US (and some other countries) is truly a generic
term, it lost it's trademark status in the Treaty of Versailles in
1919.
jim menning