DeoxIt - which is which ?

[DC1MC]

Hello everybody,
I finally want to bite the bullet and get some Deoxit, but instead of one model, there are something like 5 or 6, gold, green, pink, whatever....  , none of them exceedingly cheap, especially in Germany.
So people with more experience with it could you please give a Deoxit noob a bit of tutoring, along with your practical experience and pro-tips ?

 Many thanks,
 DC1MC

[jfiresto]

What is the application or what are they?

KONTAKT CHEMIE Kontakt Gold 2000 uses polyphenyl ether, an extremely stable, well proven precious contact lubricant. Reichelt and others sell it.

[DC1MC]

What is the application or what are they?

KONTAKT CHEMIE Kontakt Gold 2000 uses polyphenyl ether, an extremely stable, well proven precious contact lubricant. Reichelt and others sell it.

I have some contacts to clean, usually silver, copper or gold and while I have a Kontaktspray, it just makes a mess and actually it doesn't restore the contact, at least in my case. Not to mention leaving some kind of greasy residue. It is most likely thought for heavy industrial and automotive electric stuff, like fuse panels, vacuum cleaner engines and such, not for micro-contacts in electronic equipment.

So I'd like to have the pipette-like drop bottle, where you put a drop precisely where you want it, but while in the US it seem to be just one sort of Deoxit that everybody uses on micro-contacts, in DE there are multiple types available in audiophools stores, sadly most of them in those disgusting sprays and most likely useless.

So people that actually know what type is the best and how to use Deoxit, please chime in and help a contact cleaner noob.

 Thanks,
 DC1MC

[T3sl4co1l]

I have a can of MG Chemicals Super Contact Cleaner (with polyphenyl ether) which works fine.  It seems to dry up too, which seems kind of suspicious to me, would a residue film not be helpful?  At least it doesn't leave a mess, as the spray bottle is hard to meter.  (I somtimes avoid that by squirting some in a thimble and using an applicator.)

Tim

[jfiresto]

The PPE should still be there: it is just microscopically thin and not going anywhere for a long time. In the mean time, here is an informative PDF for your reading pleasure and to the greater glory of Fritz Ullmann.

[DC1MC]

OK, so PPE is a very good as a protection and lubrication agent, nice to know and the PDF was very informative. But what about actual cleaning and removal of the oxides/dirt, and why nobody talks about Deoxit, nobody uses it here  ?

DC1MC

[jfiresto]

I have not tried the three-step, but KONTAKT CHEMIE suggests a cleaner (Kontakt 60), wash (Kontakt WL) and finally protector/lubricant (Kontakt 61 or Gold 2000).

[cdev]

Can or should Deoxit be used in very small amounts on clean SMA (RF) connectors?

[helius]

DeOxit has a complicated history and product range. The main thing to know is that they have three main types of contact cleaner/protectant, called D, G, and S. D is the original "Cramolin Red" type which is a cleaner as well as a preservative. It's available in bottles, pens, and aerosols, with a number pointing to roughly how much active ingredient is in the mixture. So D5 is 5%, etc.
G was formerly called "ProGold" and is mainly a protectant with some cleaning properties, meant for preserving mostly clean gold plated contacts, although it works on other metals. For heavily oxidized or dirty contacts you should use D instead.
S was called "DeOxit Shield" and is just a preservative with no cleaning ability.

The PPE based products like MG Chemicals 801B are comparable to DeOxit G5.

The following charts show the effects of D, G (ProGold), and S (PreserveIt). Note that D and G both enhance conductivity as well, while S does not.

[Audiorepair]

Interesting.

There are lots of graphs showing no treatment against De-oxit treament, but no control.

What if you just sprayed with de-ionised water to clean it?
Didn't get a mention.

[helius]

While I don't doubt that the test is designed to show their products in a good light, these were done starting with perfectly clean contacts (so the cleaning ability is not being tested). I don't still have the link to the paper that describes the setup, but I think it's still available on the caiglabs site.

Edit: This is the test.
https://caig.com/shop-item/protection-test/

[Audiorepair]

While I don't doubt that the test is designed to show their products in a good light, these were done starting with perfectly clean contacts (so the cleaning ability is not being tested). I don't still have the link to the paper that describes the setup, but I think it's still available on the caiglabs site.

Nobody cleans new contacts.

I suspect this data is manipulated to show their product in the best possible light and may not have much to do with real life.


That said, I would love to have some data on these products in the real world, that would show some real world benefits instead.



Like, spray it on some dirty switches or something, and see what works best.

[helius]

Nobody cleans new contacts...

It looks like you want it both ways. First you want to see what effect cleaning with DI water has, now cleaning is pointless. Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear (as in bold type, twenty-four point, marquee) that it wasn't a test of cleaning ability.

[Audiorepair]

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

I am saying that if you want to conduct a meaningful experiment you need to have a control.

The control I have in mind would be to spray with De-ionised water and include that in the graph as well.


The only information those graphs from the manufacturer tell us is what happens when their products gets sprayed into the pots.

De-ionised water might perform equally well, but the charts don't tell you that.

[helius]

I am not aware of any corrosion-inhibiting effects of spraying with DI water. You are suggesting that in a salt-spray test such as MIL-STD-810, that pre-wetting the part with DI water is going to retard corrosion to any measurable degree? Are you suggesting that testing labs accredited to MIL-STD-810 perform this "control" with DI water? Is the moon made of blue cheese?

[T3sl4co1l]

What?

I am not aware of any corrosion-inhibiting effects of spraying with DI water.

Exactly, it serves as a control. What's your problem?

One might argue that water is hardly inert, that isopropyl alcohol might be a better candidate as control.  Or simply air, by cycling the contacts as one inevitably and futilely does, or compressed air in the hope of blowing away offending dust.  Or better yet, test all of the above.

Tim

[helius]

Not treating the part in any way (beyond cleaning it) is also a control, one that Audiorepair believes is inadequate because

De-ionised water might perform equally well, but the charts don't tell you that.

I am not sure what the point of that experiment would be, since DI water doesn't (as in, can't) remove oxides.

However, I should say mea culpa, because I didn't spend the time to fully analyze the charts this time (I first saw them over a decade ago). The first chart, ch-dpp-11.pdf, is a pure "preservation" (corrosion inhibition) test. The other two charts, ch-dpp-12.pdf and ch-dpp-13.pdf, are a test of both cleaning and preservation: that is why they start from a resistance of 1000 ohms (a coupon oxidized with H₂S₂). The first 12 hours are just resting as the products work at cleaning the oxides, then the corrosion test begins at the vertical line. The last chart only differs by also showing competing contact cleaner products, which is not very helpful without knowing what the "brand X" is.

[SilverSolder]

I regularly use two DeOxit products:  the D type for cleaning, followed up with the S type for longer term protection.  I have used these on Kelvin-Varley dividers, ratio transformers, rotary encoders, etc., and they have performed reliably and noise free for years afterwards.

I have found the DeOxit products to be more effective than other contact cleaning products that I have tried.  I know my experience isn't a scientific treatise...  but I know what I like!

[DC1MC]

  Many, many thanks @helius for providing a very documented and to the point answer  , finally a bit of light is shed over this, to me, rather confusing issue. Now I know, at least at surface level (pun intended  ), which is which.

I do now become curious about the "complicated history" of the product, if you have any interesting anecdotes please share.

Also thanks to the people that took their time to answer, showing other products and detailing their personal experience.
And of course I've learned that the 'pipette bottle" is called an applicator .

Cheers,
DC1MC



 

[DC1MC]

Digging trough  -bay I've found this: Deoxit F5, could it be that is better for potentiometers, membrane switches and such ?

https://www.ebay.de/itm/Caig-Laboratories-DeoxIT-57ml-FN5S-2N/193522021808

Cheers,
DC1MC

[tggzzz]

Digging trough  -bay I've found this: Deoxit F5, could it be that is better for potentiometers, membrane switches and such ?

https://www.ebay.de/itm/Caig-Laboratories-DeoxIT-57ml-FN5S-2N/193522021808

Cheers,
DC1MC

Consider Deoxit F (Faderlube) for carbon tracks.

Caig really ought to do a better job of indicating problem/use -> product.

[helius]

I do now become curious about the "complicated history" of the product, if you have any interesting anecdotes please share.

Cramolin Red was a contact cleaner made in West Germany, and imported by Caig Labs in the USA. The two companies later terminated their relationship in a somewhat acrimonious way. (http://www.pitt.edu/~szekeres/caigcram.htm)

The current version of Cramolin Red is Cramolin Contaclean. It is not often used or reviewed in the US, so there is a kind of trans-Atlantic split still. It is available from Conrad and RS in Europe.

[GLouie]

Another unscientific anecdotal user. It usually works pretty well, you shouldn't use very much. Sometimes, people like to flush out a pot, or want to spray a bunch into a blind hole in hopes of getting some onto the right area. Then you risk washing out existing lube, and you have to sop up excess petroleum naptha for days. The Faderlube (F) is sometimes better on carbon/plastic pot tracks than regular DeoxIT (D), and sometimes not, over time. Sometimes, a mystery, the pot is back to being noisy a week or year later.

DeoxIT has changed the names over the years, offers many applicators and formula strengths. It takes careful reading to decipher. Usually when I need to reorder, the names have all changed.

I use both spray cans and needle applicators of their "D" general cleaner lube and Faderlube (F). The D5 spray cans means 5% strength, the rest being mostly petroleum naptha carrier. The needle applicator bottles are 100% DeOxit, like F100L. In any case, I think a very thin film is all that you want.

[floobydust]

Caig Labs is absolutely terrible at explaining their DeoxIT product line and the differences. The website is a delirious mess.
I have to use the chemical composition data to figure it out, it's that bad.

I have Fader Lube F5 "lubricant for conductive plastics and carbon-based controls" but find there's no lube - spray it on a napkin and hours later there is no visible residue.

It is really 3-7% special sauce (trade secret) and 40-70% Naptha. Reminds me of WD-40 
So I find their products work for oxidation- but are dangerous because controls need lubricant, and there is a lot of controversy over using petroleum-based such as mineral oil (Fluke) or silicone grease or teflon (Krytox). Naptha just evaporates fast and leaves nothing that I can observe. It's better for cleaning and flushing out dirt - only.

[SilverSolder]

Caig Labs is absolutely terrible at explaining their DeoxIT product line and the differences. The website is a delirious mess.
I have to use the chemical composition data to figure it out, it's that bad.

I have Fader Lube F5 "lubricant for conductive plastics and carbon-based controls" but find there's no lube - spray it on a napkin and hours later there is no visible residue.

It is really 3-7% special sauce (trade secret) and 40-70% Naptha. Reminds me of WD-40 
So I find their products work for oxidation- but are dangerous because controls need lubricant, and there is a lot of controversy over using petroleum-based such as mineral oil (Fluke) or silicone grease or teflon (Krytox). Naptha just evaporates fast and leaves nothing that I can observe. It's better for cleaning and flushing out dirt - only.

Try a few drops on a mirror and let it dry?   I have never tried the F type, but the S type leaves a very, very, very thin layer of lubrication behind.