| ▲ | hurricanepootis 8 hours ago |
| Couldn't WD-40's formula be reverse engineered using analytical chemical techniques? GC-MS, NMR, etc. |
|
| ▲ | pogue 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The guy on YouTube who just recreated the formula of Coca-Cola with HPLC & etc should take a crack at it Perfectly Replicating Coca Cola (It Took Me A Year) by LabCoatz
https://youtu.be/TDkH3EbWTYc |
| |
| ▲ | dang 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Discussed here: Perfectly Replicating Coca Cola [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46543509 - Jan 2026 (219 comments) | |
| ▲ | xeonmc 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Instructions unclear. Taste-tested WD40. | | | |
| ▲ | Tiberium 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Coca-cola's "secret formula" is also just marketing. | |
| ▲ | cryptoz 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The title is clickbait though, he admits near the end it is not in fact a perfect replication. I could feel this of course, long before even starting to watch it. Still, upsetting because otherwise it’s an entertaining video. | | |
| ▲ | pogue 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | The main ingredient he is missing is coca leaf. I used to buy Mate de Coca tea from Peru/Boliva no problem. It's a decocanized coca leaf tea. Shame he didn't hunt around or try harder to get it. | | |
| ▲ | capitainenemo 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | He said his first order of decocanised cocoa leaf was seized at the border. I can see that discouraging trying again, esp when he's trying to make something others could reproduce. He did find a pretty good substitute for the primary cocoa leaf ingredient though. Also, what he made was virtually indistinguishable in the taste tests. One person said that his tasted closer to the 2L of coke than the can of coke did, which suggests the final bit could just be carbonation level of the soda stream. | | |
| ▲ | Spooky23 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | That was our theory in the office when we taste tested the various cokes. The favorite by far was kosher for Passover coke. At first we thought it was the sugar vs. HFCS, but bottled Mexican coke didn’t fare as well — blind most people thought Coke Zero (which is my favorite coke) was Mexican Coke. My theory was that the carbonation was perfect and the product was fresher, as the bottler requires rabbinical supervision and they probably make it for a limited run. | | |
| ▲ | gorkish 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is essentially zero chemical difference whatsoever in sugar vs corn syrup coke. sucrose disassociates in the presence of an acid into glucose+fructose simple sugars. Just being carbonated will disassociate the sucrose. | | |
| ▲ | Spooky23 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I made no assertion about the taste of sugar vs. corn syrup. There are a number of products marketed as "Coke", and those products have different flavor profiles. Some use sucrose, some HFCS. It might be formulation, it might be packaging, freshness or bottling methodology. Maybe they don't tweak formulas for limited run products or in local markets like Mexico. I have no idea. Even with the standard fountain formulation, there is a different/better flavor at McDonald's because of the standards they apply to each part of the supply chain. In a few weeks, depending on where you live, there will be two liter bottles of coke with a yellow cap. That's kosher for passover -- try it. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > sucrose disassociates in the presence of an acid into glucose+fructose simple sugars Which tastes different from pure fructose. If you want to taste them side by side, you can absolutely tell the difference. (If you've done any endurance sports, you know what I mean.) Once digested I agree that the health effects are suspect. But tastewise, fructose, sucrose and glucose are distinct. | | |
| ▲ | nkurz 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm confused by your reply. GP's point is that they both dissociate into simple sugars, and thus it doesn't matter what the source is. And your response says correctly that sucrose tastes different than both fructose and glucose, but I don't see how this contradicts him. There is (practically) no sucrose left. Are you perhaps thinking that "high fructose corn syrup" is predominantly fructose? The name is confusing, but it actually means that it is high in fructose relative to normal corn syrup, not that fructose predominates. HFCS is usually pretty close to 50:50 fructose to glucose, just like sucrose is: How much fructose is in HFCS? The most common forms of HFCS contain either 42 percent or 55 percent fructose, as described in the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR 184.1866), and these are referred to in the industry as HFCS 42 and HFCS 55. The rest of the HFCS is glucose and water. HFCS 42 is mainly used in processed foods, cereals, baked goods, and some beverages. HFCS 55 is used primarily in soft drinks. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/high-fruct... While you can measure the difference between 55:45 and 50:50, I'm doubtful the taste difference is much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Scoundreller 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sorta, it’s a mix of mixtures of molecules so you also need to consider the makeup of whatever compound it’s made with (but it’s probably something dumb like kerosene). Reality is you’d want to make something with similar physical characteristics and call it a day. Kinda like how we don’t bother with hplc on gasoline, you just fill your car with something that meets the specs and get on with life |
| |
|
| ▲ | loosescrews 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| To some extent. There are limitations on the technique, including, but not limited to, not determining the relative concentrations and not detecting all components. The WSJ article actually links to an older Wired article about doing gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy on WD-40 and the results: https://www.wired.com/2009/04/st-whatsinside-6/ |
| |
| ▲ | hurricanepootis an hour ago | parent [-] | | You could use techniques like HPLC to determine the concentrations within the sample if you know what's in it. |
|
|
| ▲ | krackers 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The components are on the MSDS (albeit only the CAS codes not the specific chemical), only the percentages seem to be a trade secret? Basically a light carrier oil mixed with kerosene-esque solvent. I almost feel the secrecy is part of the marketing ploy, since w-40 in particular isn't the "best" tool for any job (there are better standalone degreasers and penetrating lubricants). No one who cares enough about the exact composition would bother using wd-40 in the first place. |
|
| ▲ | 542458 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Related, somebody recently did this for Coke. There's a video on YouTube (I'd link it but my anti-procrastination filter is on). But yes, I strongly suspect a motivated party could use analytical chemistry to work it out. |
| |
| ▲ | throwawayq3423 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I imagine the "what's next" is the same for replicating Coke or WD-40, you have a similar product and none of the name recognition or ad spend. Not worth much. | |
| ▲ | pogue 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ha! ;) |
|
|
| ▲ | daedrdev 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Knowing all the molecules in it might be only a minor step towards actually making it, especially since some inputs of production might not be present in the final product. |
|
| ▲ | dylan604 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Trying to come up with that would result in WD-38, WD-41, etc. Can't read the paywalled article, but Water Displacement formula 40 seemed to be the best of the formulas for being a lubricant. |
|
| ▲ | IshKebab 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It probably wouldn't be that hard. This mystique is mostly marketing. I mean it's not like WD-40 has no competitors on the market. It might not even be the best. |
