Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Daryl Newsgroups: aus.electronics,aus.cars Subject: Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 12:38:47 +1100 Lines: 62 Message-ID: References: <65dab557@news.ausics.net> <65dadebe@news.ausics.net> <65db345a@news.ausics.net> <65dbb725@news.ausics.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net m+lmNGTVW7ps5JRGCabocQJzn3WrmR/EKnioc4EWoRvM5DFKvI Cancel-Lock: sha1:LOSD1tyvXz0FDCI3l8Wz639g3Ko= sha256:sImp7XgnpM0pHluBdmCPMd+0CN6FMxX9dyVRIPTBI4A= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <65dbb725@news.ausics.net> Xref: csiph.com aus.electronics:35732 aus.cars:364136 On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > In aus.electronics Noddy wrote: >> On 25/02/2024 11:36 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Here: >> >>> https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/buying-a-car/features/shonky-rust-reduction-devices-debunked >> >> [quote] >> >> WA Consumer Protection found the theory behind the computerised >> electronic corrosion inhibitors (CECI) - that rust is attracted to a >> sacrificial piece of metal using positive electrical current - could >> only work in practice if the car it was attached to was submerged in water. > > Thanks, however that's the same thing the Canadian regulator > claimed, as reported on the Wikipedia page. Then the Canadians > backed down when two of the manufacturers there had tests done > by recognised labs showing that their particular devices did > reduce rust. > > It could be that the Aussie devices are/were doing it wrong, or > those tests didn't represent read-world conditions, but I'd like > to see actual tests disproving the Canadian claims seeing > as their authorities had to back down on the "broken theory" > argument. For now I'm focusing on those as the devices > to try and replicate based on patents and the test reports. > > The thing that makes me most suspicious is that they're charging > $300-$1000+ for these systems which so far as I can see would cost > a tenth of that or less to make. That sort of profiteering suggests > some dodgyness. But then again the same's probably true of many > paints and anti-rust "treatments". > >> Government consumer protection agencies would *not* be ordering these >> products off the market and people to be refunded if they worked. >> >> It's that simple.... > > Ah yeah, but the Canadians are *not* doing that anymore, > therefore... > Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem? Rust on cars hasn't been a significant issue in Australia for many many years, in general our climate isn't damp enough for it to be an issue and car rust proofing from the factory is much improved. I own 2 cars that are more than 20yrs old and no rust on either of them so whether or not those electronic rust devices work is pretty much irrelevant to most car owners. Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal evidence then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't almost standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good indication that they simply don't work as advertised. -- Daryl