Talk:Cosmoline

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Taste?

Petroleum taste? Citation needed?209.191.212.194 07:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It is the purified residue obtained from the distillation of petroleum oils". Why would a citation be needed for the phrase you mention, then? Bloodshedder 10:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rust preventative?

I have heard the claim in some areas that cosmoline purchased during the Second World War by the US government was not just a heavy fraction of petroleum (this description makes it sound almost like asphalt, which it isn't) had rust-preventative additives. These additives, from what I have read, included 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane, long-chain chlorinated paraffins, and sulfonated lard. These were all common additives to machinists' cutting oil used at the time, and some are still used in industry; it was believed that they reduced the surface tension of melted cosmoline (cosmoline was often applied heated over a kettle of boiling water to partially melt it) and helped the rough, porous, ceramic-like phosphate surface imparted by the "parkerizing" rustproofing process absorb the oily mixture to form a barrier against moisture and corrosion. Apparently over time the sulfur and chlorinated hydrocarbons in the mixture could react with the phosphate to change its color from black to greenish grey, though this also varied with the exact chemical composition of the "parkerizing," which during the war varied considerably from manufacturer to manufacturer.

I have read that gunsmiths currently who wish to duplicate the WWII-era "green parkerized" coating start with a zinc-based parkerizing "recipe," which makes a phosphate layer that is several shades lighter in color than the usual black, coat the fresh parkerized parts in cosmoline and/or chlorinated/sulfated cutting oil, and bake them in a hot oven for a few hours. Supposedly the odor is memorably foul, but it turns the phosphate coating green, as the customers want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

theres barely any information here, what about a section for toxicity etc msds info

theres barely any information here, what about a section for toxicity info, etc m,s,d,s, info and the like should be here with its own section too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 19:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also I'd strongly assume that it contains aromatic hydrocarbons, due to the mentioned slight fluorescence. Aliphatic hydrocarbons don't do that. Maybe it's phenol, as it was seemingly used for disinfection, too. 2003:ED:F739:181B:60A1:6945:62EF:98A (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

solvent error

"Penetrating oil (such as WD-40"

WD-40 is not a penetrating oil. It is almost 100% white spirit, with a little added mineral oil. 86.10.62.169 (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

according to wikipedias own article about wd40 and the corresponding source, your claim is untrue. 89.8.164.25 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of 'Cosmoline'

Since 'cosmoline' is a genericized trademark, I think it should not be capitalized. There are exceptions. Like at the beginning of a sentence. Or when referring to versions of the product before the name became genericized. But in the usual case, 'cosmoline' should not be capitalized.

Sometimes the article uses lowercase 'cosmoline'. Other times, outside the exceptions, the article uses initial uppercase 'Cosmoline'. I would like to standardize on lowercase.

Barring objections and my laziness, I will change some of the instances of 'Cosmoline' to 'cosmoline'.

72.78.138.69 (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. So I changed some of the instances of 'Cosmoline' to 'cosmoline' in this Edit.

72.78.138.69 (talk) 72.78.138.69 (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]