Dean's World

For two years our front door's deadbolt lock has been difficult to open and shut. It catches, if freezes, it pops and creaks. It used to be mildly annoying but it's gotten worse with time. Like the proverbial (and by the way, false) story of the frog in slowly-boiling water, we just sort of got used to it. But of late it's been truly terrible.

Yesterday while pondering weighty matters of cosmology, molecular biology, and the nature of Senate cloture rules, I had a truly brilliant insight, worthy of Galileo, Einstein, Copernicus, Duesberg, Archimedes: "perhaps a lubricant might help."

Fetching a can containing a special chemical formula known to advanced students of chemistry as "WD40," I sprayed some into the keyhole, inserted the key into the lock, and opened and shut the mechanism few times. Then I sprayed in some more of the amazing chemical, and worked the mechanism a bit more.

Amazingly, the lock ceased to be difficult to turn at all!

But of course, a true scientific theory cannot be validated unless an experiment is replicated. What could I do? Then I beheld: the second lock on the door! While less troublesome, it also acted stubbornly. Eureka! I could try replicating the experiment on this very second lock!

"Spritz spritz!" into the keyhole. Work the lock mechanism a bit with the key. "Spritz spritz!" again and work it some more.

As the hypothesis predicated, now the second lock opened and shut smoothly and without difficulty. Experiment replicated successfully! Another victory for the forces of innovation and enlightened thinking!

I invite any of my peers to replicate the experiment, and to test my new theory: cranky, stubborn locks are often improved in function by the application of lubricating oils. I believe once this is replicated successfully, we can move it into the realm of established theory.

Anyone think I could get a patent on this thing?

(If I am forced to explain the humor of this piece to you, I will have to slap you in Three Stooges fashion. Or drop an anvil on your head.)

(link)

Andrew Cory (mail) (www):

Humor? Huh? I don't get it...

9.30.2005 4:11pm

MaryJ:

I was giggling through out your masterful piece.
...Yes, it has to be duplicated! Sir Esmay, you are BRILLANT and Mensa groups and scientists of all equasions will get your experiment in the e-mail immediately as I have seen to it they all get a copy of this!

BRAVO, BRAVO! (not laughing anymore, I am in a meeting regarding this discovery.)

9.30.2005 4:20pm

...Oh, yes we are all amazed...two years, just two years!?! DO YOU REALIZE the many heads turning in amazement, and impact this has on us? Two, just, 2?

9.30.2005 4:25pm

jaymaster (mail):

I’m skeptical. Where’s the peer review? And the double blind study with placebo WD-40?

But with the help of a decent marketing team (and/or a few friendly government agencies), you probably already have enough data to sell a boat load of “Lock Squeak BeGone”.

9.30.2005 4:40pm

Masked Menace (mail):

But is it falsifiable?

BK

9.30.2005 4:42pm

Jack Grant (was JMG) (mail) (www):

Thereby proving beyond all doubt that everything has an intelligent designer...

9.30.2005 4:47pm

Russell Newquist (www):

Dean - I think you just might be on to something here. I'm going to get a team together and apply for a $10 billion government grant to see if we can replicate your experiments!

9.30.2005 5:05pm

Phelps (www):

As a side note, a locksmith once warned me not to use WD-40 or other petroleum based lubricants on locks. Said it simply attracts more dirt and grit, and recommended a good graphite based lube. (And was even honest enough to point out that the stuff at the hardware store was as good as the locksmith branded stuff he sold.)

9.30.2005 5:07pm

Doc Rampage II (mail) (www):

Dean, you're my science hero for the day.

9.30.2005 5:24pm

Paul Burgess (www):

Dean, I've been performing reproducible experiments in shoelace-tying for years now. I tie one shoelace. It works. I tie the other shoelace the same. It works the very same way. And the next time I tie my shoelaces as usual, it works the same all over again. I repeat, I can reproduce this experiment at will.

If I had a pet dog— completely unacquainted with shoelace-tying, don't you know— it could perhaps serve as a control in the experiment. Or maybe just someone who ties their shoelaces weird. Though would it be ethical to involve test subjects in an experiment which might lead to them literally tripping over their own shoelaces?

I keep thinking maybe I could qualify for a research grant in this important experiment in applied physics and topology.

We must also reject fundamentalists' shoes a priori. What, do fundamentalists think their shoes are fastened by shoe pixies, or something? Even if that's not what they think, that's what I insist on thinking they think. So there!

9.30.2005 5:34pm

JoetheFarmer (mail):

I'm sorry Dean, but unless you can point me to the Seminal Paper(tm) which demonstrates the exact mechanism by which WD40 "cures" pesky locks, I'm going to have to regard your experience as merely anecdotal, and of no scientific significance.

9.30.2005 5:56pm

BG_Doug (mail) (www):

All I see here is yet another example of the "correllation equals causation" fallacy. Hello! Real scientists know nothing ever causes anything else.

9.30.2005 6:12pm

Dean Esmay:

Joe: I believe I have just published the seminal paper that can be referred to in years to come by those questioning the ultimate basis for the theory.

I merely await the validation of my peers.

9.30.2005 6:26pm

Sandi (www):

I'll verify this works Dean although I never used WD40 which I believe contains lead.

What I have used is a electronic contacts cleaner which is basically a silicone lube and kerosene. It works for your applications and also great for sticky window slides in old houses.

9.30.2005 7:05pm

Rosemary Esmay (www):

Of course, Dean neglects to mention that before using the WD40, he double checked that it wasn't something I needed for my bra...

9.30.2005 7:56pm

triticale (mail) (www):

WD40 is in fact a very poor lubricant. In the long run it will form a sticky film, and even if it doesn't trap dirt the problem will return. It is also a very poor penetrant for overtight fasteners. Graphite or silicon for a lube, and B'Laster as a penetrant.

9.30.2005 8:03pm

John Anderson (mail):

Uh, WD-40™ is not a lubricant - it is a dessicant. But yes, it works wonders!

For more permanent fix, as suggested above graphite might be better.

While I'm at it, do you car doors ingest water/snow and freeze up? I've found a soft-rubber cover with a slit for the key. Don't remember where, but your local auto-parts (or just plain hardware) store may have them.

9.30.2005 8:58pm

Dean -

You have a sample size of two. Hardly enough for a meaningful satistical analysis.

9.30.2005 9:09pm

Fools! I'll destroy you all!

9.30.2005 9:37pm

Tyrone Steels II (mail) (www):

Graphite! No way! WD-40 is just too cool to use. And besides, you ever spray a fly with WD-40? They just fly lower and lower until they crash.

Fly sadism for the win!

9.30.2005 9:41pm

T-Steel,

Windex works great on flies too! (and wasps)

9.30.2005 11:26pm

I told you windex was good for everything!

-Gus Portokalos

10.1.2005 12:35am

Casey Tompkins (mail) (www):

Ya know...

What with all this talk about "keys" in "holes," "penetrants" and "lubricants..."

Are we still talking about deadbolts here?

And just what kind of dead bolt are we talking about? Hm?

Science is so nasty. Heh heh heh...

10.1.2005 2:25am

JFC:

JoetheFarmer, are you related to Philip Jose Farmer? You rock.

John

10.1.2005 5:09am

Arnold Harris (mail):

You could always do like the old time movie tough guys. Pull out your rod, aim it, sqeeze, and shoot the lock off.

That'll show 'em.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

10.2.2005 12:58am

You know, I only own a shotgun, but I bet it would be effective at that.

10.2.2005 7:16am

Joy McCann (Attila Girl) (mail) (www):

Of course, you might have a bit less door left after all that.

10.3.2005 4:05am