Old-School Oils On Modern Pocket Knives?

In online forums, people frequently ask if traditional oils such as 3-In-One (or gun oils such as Hoppe’s No. 9) are a good choice for use on pocket knives. Here’s my answer, based on some history and science behind it.

3-In-One oil was first sold in 1894. It was originally marketed for use on bicycles and bicycle chains. Over generations, it grew into a quintessential American product used on just about any moving metal parts imaginable – including millions of folding knives. Even today, many people still swear by it. It performs its main function (that of lubrication) very well, is widely and easily available, and costs only a fraction of fancy modern high-tech lubricants. (I might add that traditionalists often deride the latest lubricants as overpriced, overhyped snake oils). But is it the best option?

Old-school gun oils, such as Hoppe’s No. 9 or others, also lubricate very well (or even better) than 3-In-One. But all of these products have something in common: they were all formulated at a time when high-carbon steels were the norm for guns, knives and moving parts in machinery. These steels rust when coming into contact with oxygen, especially so in the presence of water. Therefore, old time lubricants include compounds meant to “stick” to the steel and isolating it from oxygen and water as much as possible. As other, shorter-chained hydrocarbons evaporate over time, a higher percentage of the longer-chained, more viscous compounds remain. In addition, all oils will eventually undergo chemical changes. They will also pick up dust and debris. All of this combines to make them more gummy, grimy, dry or gritty over a period of time.

Is this a problem in an application like folding pocket knives? Not really, but it depends. I believe the criticism of oils like gun oils and 3-In-One is mostly based on user error and therefore undeserved. What happened is that collectors have dabbed these oils on, and then put away their treasures without really using them for long periods of time. Surprise surprise: the moving parts became awfully sticky. And since collectors tend to be accepted as authorities and opinion leaders by the general public, negative assessments of traditional oils became blown out of proportion.

That’s not really a problem for the every day user who follows a simple rule of maintenance: Don’t just oil you pocket knife and put it away. Whether you do or don’t use it, clean the old lubricant off from time to time. Do this in regular intervals or before it comes gunky. Use some type of solvent (maybe just soapy water and an old but clean toothbrush perhaps). Then rinse and dry thoroughly, and apply fresh lubricant.

Another point to consider is the steel from which your pocket knife is made. The vast majority of today’s pocket knives are made from a number of types of stainless steels. Since these do not require the level of corrosion protection needed for older high carbon steels, why would you need the more problematic compounds included in old-school oils? For something like a Victorinox Swiss Army Knife (Ibach, Switzerland), or the products of Buck Knives (Post Falls, Idaho) – you probably don’t.

The standard blade of the iconic Buck 110 folder is made from heat treated 420HC steel, which is highly corrosion resistant. This kind of steel doesn’t require the anti-corrosive compounds found in old-school lubricants designed for high carbon steels.

Another problem that may or may not concern you: 3-In-One oil and gun oils are not rated as harmless for human consumption. (That’s true for all petroleum-derived oils, with pure food grade mineral oil being the only commercially available exception I’m aware of). Does that matter? I doubt it, given the very small amounts of oil that might end up into your food. After all, you are not going to simmer your entire folding knife in your soup pot. (Hopefully). However, some of these oils may have a smell that could be unappetizing when you eat.

If you are concerned about toxicity, the old-school Ballistol, would be a non-toxic, extremely capable option. (I still would not recommend pouring it over your salad). Ballistol is the stuff of legend too numerous to recount here. It predates World War-I and has many highly compelling qualities. Among them are the very high stability and anti-corrosion properties, even on high carbon steel, and at great temperature ranges. Curiously, Ballistol emulsifies quite easily with water, which makes it even more slippery when it gets wet. German makers of carbon steel blades (for instance, OTTER-Messer of Solingen, Germany) actually recommend Ballistol to lubricate and inhibit rust on old-fashioned, high-carbon steel knives. They have even been known to ship some of their carbon-blades with a sealed Ballistol-soaked pad). Ballistol has a great number of uses around the house, which makes it a great, universal all-round product to keep around. The only downsides here: Ballistol has a mild but distinct sweet licorice-like scent, which some people find unpleasant. Conversely, other people love it. Another possible downside: it’s not very widely available. Then again, it is easy to order online these days.

If you are concerned about both toxicity and scent, the aforementioned food grade mineral oil would be an odorless alternative. A natural and plant based choice would be pure jojoba oil or “wax”, which comes from the seeds of Simmondsia chinensis, of a shrub of the North American Southwest. Refined jojoba oil is both colorless to slightly yellowish, and odorless. Yes, you could technically ingest it. But since our digestive system can’t break it down, it will basically function as laxative. (Even for that, it is not recommended).

Jojoba oil was reportedly used to lubricate machine guns in the past, probably because it is much more heat resistant than petroleum based old-school gun oils. A low percentage of triglycerides makes jojoba oil much more stable than other plant oils such as olive, grape seed, safflower, canola or almond oil. (Don’t put those in the moving parts of your folding knives. The same goes for animal fats such as butter or lard). Much cheaper than jojoba oil and available just about anywhere nowadays would be coconut oil. This one you can really eat. (If you have a high carbon blade used on food, it makes a good option for coating the blade, but not so much for the joints of a folding knife).

All that said, it must be remembered that none of these plant oils are nearly as stable as synthetic petroleum based oils or unique products like Ballistol. Also, the corrosion protection and lubrication capabilities of plant based oils in all temperature and humidity conditions are generally inferior to man-made lubricants – so beware.

Regardless of what kind of lubricant you use, my main recommendation is this: clean it off from time to time and apply fresh lubricant. Think of it as giving your pocket knife a regular oil change.

Bonus tip: If you use your knife to cut food (especially acidic things, like fruit), wipe it clean with a moist cloth immediately when the job is done. Then wipe it dry right away. (Even stainless steel isn’t totally “rust free”). And should you have a high carbon steel blade, rub on a little oil or fat. Don’t overthink this. Whatever kind of fat you have at hand will suffice. (Well, perhaps except salted butter). Sure, your carbon steel blade will discolor and form a “patina”, but that’s part of the fascinating aspects of carbon steel: no two blades will ever be the same – appealing to some, but not to others. Take it or leave it!

Related Articles:

TweetReinhard

Notre-Dame de Paris

It is impossible to understand and appreciate a gothic cathedral without experiencing it in person. That is why, for nine centuries, millions people from all over the world have gone to Notre-Dame. Not anymore. This is endlessly horrific — not just for Paris, and not just for France, but for all mankind.

Related Articles:

TweetReinhard

Language Changes?

James Lincoln Warren.
Photo: Reinhard Kargl

By James Lincoln Warren

I will rarely engage with people who want to argue with me about grammar and diction. They almost always open their salvoes with, “Language changes!”, as if I were utterly ignorant of this. Of course language changes. That is not the point.

Change is not a value, in and of itself.

The question people need to ask when they indulge in adopting certain changes is, “What value is in the change?”

If it is a constructive value, then well and good. If it is a destructive value, then bad.

Which naturally leads to the question, what values are we talking about, anyway?

The first and most obvious value of language is semantic clarity, but that isn’t its only function. It’s also used to promote or suppress emotions, for example. And it’s a very significant contributor to establishing group identity.

The way you talk and write is a lot like what you choose to wear. It projects your self-image. There is a distinct difference between long-lived styles and short-lived fads. It announces your sense of class. It may announce a desired impression: “I am refined”, “I am beautiful”, “I am rich”, “I am a rebel”, and so on. Image is also a value.

The forensic linguistic term for language used to establish a particular group identity is called its “register”. This includes slang, professional lingo, bureaucratese, regional dialect, and so forth. (When I was a student at the Mannes College of Music in New York back in the 70s, there was a student there named Arthur Wood or Woodley or something similar, who was a singer with a rich, sonorous baritone voice. He was from the Virgin Islands. When he talked to the other students, he spoke with a perfectly indistinguishable American accent—but when he talked to the school’s janitor, Wendell, also from the VI, he switched into a mellifluous Caribbean accent and a different syntax. It was like he was two different people—both of them very pleasant, I might add.)

Police are famous for having an international register that may not let you know where they’re from, but will definitely tell you the speaker is a cop. An example of this is the postposed “then”, meaning that “then” follows a noun instead of preceding it as is usually the case, viz., “I then proceeded to the station,” in lieu of “Then I went to the station.” (“Proceeded” is also a register marker, of course.)

This is not standard usage, but I have no problem with it, other than the fact that it lacks grace. It has value to its users.

Likewise with slang, although sometimes it fails when it pretends to be standard—I recently read a short phrase online wherein someone described himself as a “sapiophile”. I had never run across that word before, and couldn’t find it in the Oxford English Dictionary. That’s because it’s actually slang. It’s supposed to mean “a person who likes intelligent people.” I think it’s highfalutin nonsense, used to try to make the speaker sound smart by using a word that seems sophisticated, with the connotation being, “if you don’t know what this words means, it’s because you aren’t as smart as I am, so I won’t like you.”

How is that adding value to the language?

The worst offenses, though, are those that reduce the meanings of words, like the ubiquitous “awesome”. It is now impossible to use that word to describe something that inspires awe. It used to be an age identifier, but that has long since evaporated, too. Now it’s just insipid.

But I’m not going to argue with anybody about it, one on one. Use of language absolutely is tied in with identity, and confronting someone with a consistent misusage is like rapping their knuckles everytime they make a mistake, punishing them for being stupid or slow.

Margaret corrects me everytime I make an error, but since part of MY identity is wrapped up in ensuring standard usage, I am grateful for the corrections. Plus, I usually know better than to argue with my wife.

So—please don’t justify using a barbarism on the grounds that language changes. I know it does. I am not trying to arrest changes. I’m only trying to weed out the bad ones.

[Guest post courtesy of James Lincoln Warren]

Related Articles:

TweetReinhard

Am I Dead?

I regret to inform you that I have been murdered. That’s at least according to a local press report in the Santa Monica Observer . Since I serve as chairman on the local neighborhood council (which is no small feat for a “transient from San Diego”), I have no doubt that there are those who want me dead.

But, in the words of one of my favorite authors (Mark Twain), the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.

(click or tap to enlarge)

Related Articles:

TweetReinhard

What Is Novichok?

On March 4, 2018, former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned in the English city of Salisbury. Since then, journalists have been scrambling to find out more about the alleged poison, a mysterious substance identified by British authorities as “Novichok”.

First off, it isn’t just one chemical, but appears to be a whole new class of nerve agents, a type of chemical weapons which disrupt the mechanisms by which nerves control vital body functions.

So far, we are familiar with two main classes of nerve agents. The “G-series” was first synthesized by German scientists during World War II. Among this group are tabun, also known as “GA” (invented in 1936), sarin, also known as “GB” (invented in 1939) and soman, also known as “GD” (invented in 1944). (Interesting detail: the Third Reich’s military refused to deploy nerve agents as weapons even though by the end of the war, between 500 kg to 10 tons had been produced. But that’s another story). After the war, GF (cyclosarin) was added to this group in 1949.

The second group, the V-series agents, go back to mostly British development, which was continued with work done the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Members of this class are VE, VG, VM, VR, and VX.

Novichok (Russian: Новичо́к, “newcomer”) seems to be a class of nerve agents different from the two above. It was developed by the Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s as part of a secret weapons program reportedly named “Foliant”. The specific intent was to be undetectable by standard NATO methods at the time, to defeat NATO protective gear, and to circumvent the Chemical Weapons Convention list of controlled precursors and classes of chemicals. All in all, over 100 chemical variants were developed and tested.

Most of what little is in the public domain about this can be traced to publications by two Russian chemists, Lev Fedorov and Vil Mirzayanov, writing for the Moskovskiye Novosti weekly in 1992. Mirzayanov claimed he made his disclosure out of environmental concerns, after measuring levels of deadly substances 80 times greater than the maximum safe concentration in the vicinity of Russian chemical weapons facilities. Mirzayanov was arrested in October 1992 and charged with high treason. He served some time in prison, and subsequent to his release, left Russia to live in the U.S. However, during Mirzayanov’s trial, some more details about the Novichok program emerged, and the Russian military was forced to acknowledge the existence of this group of chemicals.

According to Mirzayanov, the most potent compounds from this family, Novichok-5 and Novichok-7, are supposedly around five to eight times more potent than VX. The agents are reportedly capable of being delivered as a liquid, aerosol or gas via a variety of delivery systems, including bombs, missiles, artillery shells and spraying devices.

The absorption of nerve agents into the human body can be by skin contact, ingestion, inhalation or injection. Generally speaking, these chemicals were conceptualized as weapons of mass destruction and for wide dispersement. The pin-point use as murder weapons in targeted assassinations appears to have been an afterthought. But it is now well documented in several instances, such as the murders of Russian banker Ivan Kivelidi and his secretary Zara Ismailov in 1995, or the killing of Kim Jong-nam in Malaysia on February 13, 2017. (The U.S. Department of State has claimed the assassination was a plot conducted by agents of North Korea, using VX).

And here it gets extremely troubling. It would appear that nerve agents, due to their rapid effectiveness in extremely small doses, make ideal weapons for assassinations. However, these chemicals require highly specialized skills and facilities to develop, manufacture and deploy – all of which is difficult to conduct except in the presence of state-sponsored weapons programs. Even where chemical weapons treaties led to the controlled and audited destruction of chemical weapons of mass destruction, there can be no doubt that small batches of all these substances were retained, and that of course, the process of making them (even in very small quantities) is well understood by those who were involved in these military weapons programs.

So are we looking at a coming new era of silent state-sponsored assassinations? Could this become a method for governments or institutions to get rid of regime critics, political dissenters or opponents, alleged traitors, whistleblowers and others deemed a threat, on a large scale?

It could well be. The other options – an illicit trade of these substances, or the possibility that criminal organizations, terrorist groups or rogue individuals may have found ways to cook them up in hidden labs – are equally scary.

Either way this will play out, the future on this issue looks gloomy.

Related Articles:

TweetReinhard

Extract From A Letter By Thomas Jefferson To Charles Yancey

Monticello Jan. 6. 16.

“if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be. the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty & property of their constituents. there is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.”

Thomas Jefferson by Rembrandt Peale, 1800

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

Related Articles:

TweetReinhard

The Tragic End of Laika The Space Dog

60 years ago today, topping the spectacular success of Sputnik 1, the Soviet Union again amazed the world with the launch of Sputnik 2. This satellite was much larger than its predecessor, and it carried the first living passenger to space: Laika the dog. The mission paved the way for human spaceflight by proving that life could be sustained in space.

Ever since I was a boy I have been wondering what happened to Laika. My books only reported that she did not survive, but did not give any details. Unfortunately the truth of the matter is rather sad and shocking. I believe Laika’s fate should be mentioned.

At one time, she was a mongrel stray dog wandering the streets of Moscow. She ended up in an animal shelter, and was one of several dogs picked up for the space program. Her age was estimated to be around three years, and she weighed 6 kg (13 pds).

During her training, Soviet personnel called her “Kudryavka” (Russian for “Little Curly”), “Zhuchka” (“Little Bug”) and “Limonchik” (“Little Lemon”), but somehow “Laika” stuck. In addition to her, two alternate dogs were being trained: Albina and Mushka.

The dogs were subjected to noises and forces similar to what they would experience during launch. In order to adapt the dogs to the tiny confines of Sputnik 2, they were kept in progressively smaller containers for up to 20 days. Of course all this meant tremendous stress for the dogs, who stopped urinating and defecating and deteriorated physically. The dogs were trained to eat a gel food, presumably because it produced little bodily waste and was easy to transport and dispense.

The schedule was extremely tight, because Nikita Khrushchev wanted a launch on or before Nov. 7 (the 40th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. It would have been impossible to design a re-entry and landing system in such a short time. As a result, Laika’s flight was planned to end in a fireball. But before re-entry, Laika was meant to be poisoned by remote control.

After the final selection was made, Laika was placed in the satellite three days before launch. Just prior to launch, her fur was sponged in an alcohol solution and iodine was applied. Electrodes were attached to send back telemetry of her bodily functions.

The data showed that during peak acceleration of the launch, her pulse rate increased from 103 to an incredible 240 beats per minute. The poor dog’s breathing quickened to three to four times the normal rate. After engine cut off and in the weightlessness of Sputnik 2’s orbit, she relaxed somewhat, but it took three hours for her life signs to return to normal. She was clearly agitated but appeared to be eating her food.

There had been a problem during launch: one part did not jettison properly, which prevented the climate control system from functioning properly. As a result, the interior of Laika’s vehicle reached 40 °C (104 °F).

Soviet sources gave many conflicting accounts of what happened next, but fact is that Laika suffered a slow and awful death. Perhaps the most authoritative (and most recent) account is contained in a paper submitted by Dr. Dimitri Malshenkov to the World Space Congress in Houston, Texas, in 2002. It asserts that Laika died from overheating between the 5th and 7th hour of the flight.

Laika has not been forgotten, nor should she be. Her name lives on in numerous books and articles, on postage stamps from various countries, in brands of consumables and in pop music: (iTunes currently lists hundreds of items containing “Laika” in either the artist name or song title). 

SaveSave

SaveSave

Related Articles:

TweetReinhard

Sold: Handwritten Note By Albert Einstein

Here’s a note Albert Einstein wrote while staying at the Imperial Hotel Tokyo in 1922. As the story goes, he handed it to a Japanese courier who had come to the hotel to deliver Einstein a message. Selling price at auction in October 2017: $1.56m (€1.33m )

Related Articles:

TweetReinhard