Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Loctite Lock N Seal  (Read 4064 times)

HS93 (RIP)

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,922
  • I cannot spell , tough
  • Location: Rainhill UK
Loctite Lock N Seal
« on: February 20, 2010, 11:29:55 am »

does anybody know if there is a difference between these two products

Loctite Lock N Seal   i(n a blue tube shown)


Loctite Lock N Seal 243

i have always used the stuff in the blue tube, and have just ordered some new tubes and was sent the 243, (but he advertised the blue tubes) the blue tubes seal well and always come apart clean with only a small clean with a soft copper brush required.
so any help would be grateful

peter
Logged

benjaml1

  • Guest
Logged

HS93 (RIP)

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,922
  • I cannot spell , tough
  • Location: Rainhill UK
Re: Loctite Lock N Seal
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2010, 12:49:55 pm »

problem with the link is it does not show all the product and both of these are missing, yet the likes of RS and some of the big suppliers have the 243, its more first hand info I need.

thanks

Peter
Logged

Underpressure

  • Guest
Re: Loctite Lock N Seal
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2010, 02:52:15 pm »

I did a search for Lock'n'Seal and came up with 243. I have used 243 on my Proteus boiler and as far as I can see it is the same stuff. The sealant itself is blue, as L'n'S is and it sets very quickly, as I found when installing the water gauge fittings.

I have had no leaks from the boiler using 243, so I'm pretty sure it the same (or improved) stuff.
Logged

benjaml1

  • Guest
Re: Loctite Lock N Seal
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2010, 04:52:16 pm »

The blue one is 242, the red 243....  :-))
Logged

HS93 (RIP)

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,922
  • I cannot spell , tough
  • Location: Rainhill UK
Re: Loctite Lock N Seal
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2010, 07:10:17 pm »

benjaml1  thanks for that from what I can see they seem very similar I think. can you see anything detrimental in using it .

Thanks all for the help

peter
Logged

BarryM

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Location: West Lothian
Re: Loctite Lock N Seal
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2010, 07:32:24 pm »

Logged

benjaml1

  • Guest
Re: Loctite Lock N Seal
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2010, 12:56:27 am »

Excellent advice from Barry..

What I can deduce is Lock' n Seal is not an original Locktite brand name, there seems to have been a takeover of product lines that has blurred the issue..... There are different packaging for different markets & the blue "wrapping" may indeed be a grey market import. That being said, if I were flying the Shuttle or dare I say Concorde, I would delve deeper...

Go with the MSDS sheets I previously published, if  242 falls in with your application, I say go with it....
Logged

geoff p

  • Guest
Re: Loctite Lock N Seal
« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2010, 05:28:21 am »

Benjaml, I wonder ~how~ one can delve deeper in Loctite's site?  I tried the link you first suggested, and from there did a search. Nothing.

Next I did a search for Loctite 680, a Retaining Compound according to the label on bottle on my desk, but neither Loctiteproducts nor Loctite.com have anything to match. 

I have emailed Loctite.com asking for datasheets (as suggested on their product label.)  We'll see if they can be bothered to respond.

Their (US) website gives me the impression it is more about Press and Media Relations, Investor Relations etc, than it is about actual products.

Geoff
Logged

benjaml1

  • Guest
Re: Loctite Lock N Seal
« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2010, 03:48:46 pm »

Loctite Corporation of Connecticut USA was taken over by a German company Henkel International in 1997. I think you may find products under the name of "Loctite" to be different internationally, other than those numbered as such..

Good luck...  :-))
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.082 seconds with 22 queries.