Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!nntp.comgw.net!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx01.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Bud Frede Newsgroups: aus.electronics,aus.cars,alt.home.repair,uk.d-i-y Subject: Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Organization: Wossamotta U. References: <65dab557@news.ausics.net> <65dadebe@news.ausics.net> <65db345a@news.ausics.net> X-No-Archive: Yes X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Lines: 44 Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 10:26:43 UTC Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 05:26:33 -0500 X-Received-Bytes: 2859 Xref: csiph.com aus.electronics:35746 aus.cars:364150 alt.home.repair:976158 uk.d-i-y:1199086 chop writes: > On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev > wrote: > >> In aus.electronics Daryl wrote: >>> On 25/2/2024 8:22 pm, Noddy wrote: >>>> Stick to whatever you like, but there are no electronic rust prevention >>>> processes out there that are anything other than snake oil. >>>> >>> If they did work they would be very popular in places like the UK or Nth >>> America where they get snow and ice on the roads treated with salt and >>> they don't seem to be popular in those places. >> >> That's exactly the sort of non-evidence that makes me want to test >> it out myself. On the one hand there are tests accepted by the >> Canadian regulators as proof of effectiveness, and on the other >> hand "they don't seem to be popular". > > That may just be because the car manufacturers currently > do a good enough job with the paint so they aren't necessary > > I have added alt.home.repair which has lots of north americans > and likely Clare Snyder who is actually a male, whose first name > is Clarence who is a very experience mechanic may comment. > > I sure wouldn't pay hundreds >> for one, but if the root of the thing is just applying simple >> electrical signals to the paint surface, it's an easy thing to test >> a DIY equivalent on some bits of scrap. Some of the patents contain >> useful details. >> >> But if there are actual records of people doing such tests and >> showing that it's all lies, which I can see myself (not just hear >> rumor of), then I wouldn't. A friend of mine tested this in the lab when I was in college. The devices don't work. They've been around for decades and they've never worked. He wrote a paper on it for the class he was in, but I don't think it was ever published since it just debunked some junk science and didn't actually represent any new and valuable research in terms of chemistry.