<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.trackchanges.net/2009/04/27/a-rose-by-any-other-name-would-smell-as-sweet/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.trackchanges.net/2009/04/27/a-rose-by-any-other-name-would-smell-as-sweet/</link>
	<description>a blog on design &#38; business</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:38:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Knight</title>
		<link>http://www.trackchanges.net/2009/04/27/a-rose-by-any-other-name-would-smell-as-sweet/comment-page-1/#comment-27537</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Knight</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:46:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.trackchanges.net/2009/04/27/a-rose-by-any-other-name-would-smell-as-sweet/#comment-27537</guid>
		<description>Thing is, my problem would be that they aren&#039;t the same product... and that they should be used in conjunction with each-other.

WD means &quot;water displacing&quot; - it dissolves rust and drives out water. It&#039;s a non-petroleum cleaner, NOT a lubricant. I&#039;ll say again, WD40 is NOT a lubricant and trying to use it as such is just asking for it to fail.

PB50 is a petroleum based lubricant. 

It&#039;s why restoring rusted items like chains my process is to first run it through a degreaser, then wash it in soap and water with a wire brush, then hose it in WD-40 and let it sit for a day, THEN hose it in a lubricant like 3 in 1, Marvel or PB50.

I think that&#039;s the intent of the name, to imply it&#039;s the lubricant you should use after cleaning with WD-40.

Again, WD-40 is NOT a lubricant, it&#039;s a cleaner. PB50 is a lubricant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thing is, my problem would be that they aren&#8217;t the same product&#8230; and that they should be used in conjunction with each-other.</p>
<p>WD means &#8220;water displacing&#8221; &#8211; it dissolves rust and drives out water. It&#8217;s a non-petroleum cleaner, NOT a lubricant. I&#8217;ll say again, WD40 is NOT a lubricant and trying to use it as such is just asking for it to fail.</p>
<p>PB50 is a petroleum based lubricant. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s why restoring rusted items like chains my process is to first run it through a degreaser, then wash it in soap and water with a wire brush, then hose it in WD-40 and let it sit for a day, THEN hose it in a lubricant like 3 in 1, Marvel or PB50.</p>
<p>I think that&#8217;s the intent of the name, to imply it&#8217;s the lubricant you should use after cleaning with WD-40.</p>
<p>Again, WD-40 is NOT a lubricant, it&#8217;s a cleaner. PB50 is a lubricant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MAT</title>
		<link>http://www.trackchanges.net/2009/04/27/a-rose-by-any-other-name-would-smell-as-sweet/comment-page-1/#comment-17398</link>
		<dc:creator>MAT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:15:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.trackchanges.net/2009/04/27/a-rose-by-any-other-name-would-smell-as-sweet/#comment-17398</guid>
		<description>The problem with PB B&#039;laster is that it is trying to up-end an institution and failing miserably. &quot;PB-50&quot; is even harder to say, in my opionion. It has the same amount of syllables but just sounds wrong. 

I can&#039;t remember when the last time someone said to me, &quot;Hey, where&#039;s the spray lubricant?&quot;, it has always been, &quot;Pass me the WD-40&quot;. The brand name has turned into the universal symbol for the product.

I agree with you on Number 4. You can&#039;t really go after these people because they don&#039;t deserve the attention. All you can do is just re-enforce your own value and people will see it.

The only other company I can think of immediately that holds the same kind of brand-power is Dockers. They too, have a brand name that is synonymous with the item it sells. They arent&#039;t &quot;casual slacks&quot; or &quot;relaxed dress pants&quot; they are &quot;Dockers!&quot;

Good Article.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with PB B&#8217;laster is that it is trying to up-end an institution and failing miserably. &#8220;PB-50&#8243; is even harder to say, in my opionion. It has the same amount of syllables but just sounds wrong. </p>
<p>I can&#8217;t remember when the last time someone said to me, &#8220;Hey, where&#8217;s the spray lubricant?&#8221;, it has always been, &#8220;Pass me the WD-40&#8243;. The brand name has turned into the universal symbol for the product.</p>
<p>I agree with you on Number 4. You can&#8217;t really go after these people because they don&#8217;t deserve the attention. All you can do is just re-enforce your own value and people will see it.</p>
<p>The only other company I can think of immediately that holds the same kind of brand-power is Dockers. They too, have a brand name that is synonymous with the item it sells. They arent&#8217;t &#8220;casual slacks&#8221; or &#8220;relaxed dress pants&#8221; they are &#8220;Dockers!&#8221;</p>
<p>Good Article.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
