Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > aus.electronics > #35708 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-02-25 13:34 +1000 |
| Last post | 2024-02-27 19:23 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 93 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to aus.electronics
DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-02-25 13:34 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Ozix <ozix@xizo.am> - 2024-02-25 11:59 +0800
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-02-25 16:18 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-02-25 14:17 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Noddy <me@home.com> - 2024-02-25 17:17 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-02-25 16:31 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Noddy <me@home.com> - 2024-02-25 20:22 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2024-02-25 20:58 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2024-02-25 22:14 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-02-25 22:36 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Noddy <me@home.com> - 2024-02-25 23:50 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-02-26 07:54 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2024-02-26 11:53 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2024-02-26 12:38 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Noddy <me@home.com> - 2024-02-26 12:52 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2024-02-26 13:53 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Noddy <me@home.com> - 2024-02-26 19:52 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2024-02-26 14:29 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-02-26 13:57 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Noddy <me@home.com> - 2024-02-26 20:04 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-02-26 19:37 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Noddy <me@home.com> - 2024-02-26 23:26 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-02-27 07:38 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2024-02-27 13:32 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention OldIron <Hans.Andnees@gmail.com> - 2024-02-27 06:51 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2024-02-27 13:27 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-02-26 14:17 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2024-02-26 17:00 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-02-26 17:49 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Noddy <me@home.com> - 2024-02-26 20:20 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2024-02-26 21:35 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-02-27 07:50 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2024-02-27 09:33 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-02-27 11:38 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2024-02-27 21:28 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2024-02-28 08:38 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Noddy <me@home.com> - 2024-02-26 20:16 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-02-26 19:49 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Noddy <me@home.com> - 2024-02-26 23:29 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2024-02-26 05:58 +0800
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention chop <chop654@gmail.com> - 2024-02-26 05:48 +1100
Re: Nym-shifting Trolling Senile PIG from Oz Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2024-02-25 19:57 +0100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2024-02-26 05:26 -0500
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2024-02-26 21:51 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2024-02-27 06:13 +1100
Re: Lonely Obnoxious Cantankerous Auto-contradicting Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2024-02-26 20:42 +0100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-02-27 08:05 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> - 2024-02-27 08:27 +0000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention jon@home.org - 2024-02-27 08:38 +0000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2024-02-27 21:35 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention jon@home.org - 2024-02-27 13:13 +0000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Frank <"frank "@frank.net> - 2024-02-27 19:46 -0500
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2024-02-27 19:38 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2024-02-27 09:33 +0000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2024-02-27 11:30 +0000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2024-02-27 21:09 +0000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Frank <"frank "@frank.net> - 2024-02-27 19:44 -0500
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2024-02-28 08:49 +1100
Re: Lonely Obnoxious Cantankerous Auto-contradicting Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2024-02-27 23:15 +0100
Re: Lonely Obnoxious Cantankerous Auto-contradicting Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2024-02-27 10:59 +0100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2024-02-27 20:26 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-02-27 12:02 -0500
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2024-02-28 05:02 +1100
Re: Lonely Obnoxious Cantankerous Auto-contradicting Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! Peeler <trolltrap@valid.invalid> - 2024-02-27 20:08 +0100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Noddy <me@home.com> - 2024-02-28 11:24 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2024-02-29 18:33 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-02-28 07:23 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Frank <"frank "@frank.net> - 2024-02-27 19:53 -0500
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-02-28 11:44 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2024-03-05 08:49 -0500
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2024-03-06 08:35 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-03-06 08:19 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2024-03-06 12:09 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2024-03-06 12:03 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> - 2024-03-06 20:56 +0000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2024-03-07 09:03 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Noddy <me@home.com> - 2024-03-07 10:43 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2024-03-07 11:09 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Sven <Hans.Andnees@gmail.com> - 2024-03-07 12:06 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-03-09 09:47 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-03-06 08:13 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention "cshenk" <cshenk@virginia-beach.net> - 2024-03-05 23:06 +0000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2024-03-05 17:55 -0800
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2024-02-26 05:29 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention "floffy@gallaxial.com" <floffy@gallaxial.com> - 2024-02-25 13:38 -0500
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Noddy <me@home.com> - 2024-02-26 07:33 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2024-02-26 06:00 +0800
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2024-02-26 05:42 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-02-26 08:16 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2024-02-26 09:50 +1100
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-02-26 08:50 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-02-27 11:45 +1000
Re: DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2024-02-27 19:23 +1100
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 19:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <65dc5bc9@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #35741 |
In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote: > On 26/02/2024 2:57 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > >> You told me experiments had been tried and failed, but no references >> to who/what/when/where. > > What I told you was that the things don't work. They have been around in > various form for decades, and various tests over the years have shown > them to be nothing but snake oil What tests? > What I *also* showed you was a link to report from the NRMA which stated > that similar devices had been ordered off the market and the companies > who sold them ordered to refund buyers. I case you missed it the first > time, the article is here: > >> https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/buying-a-car/features/shonky-rust-reduction-devices-debunked > > Again, >> > I quote the salient points: > >> Consumer advocates have warned motorists to stay away from >> electrolysed rust reduction devices after Western Australian >> authorities proved the products don?t work. > > and > >> NSW Fair Trading Commissioner Rod Stowe has warned NSW consumers not >> to waste their money buying the products. Says nothing about any testing! The "proof" was just disputing the theory. I don't call that a "test". I guess you must use the word differently. >>> Just go ahead and do your testing Kev. Sounds like you have little >>> else to amuse yourself with.... >> >> I've always got rust repairs to amuse myself with. > > You sound like the kind of person who is looking for a magic fix for an > age old problem Sure. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noddy <me@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 23:26 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <uri01f$2hb6a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35744 |
On 26/02/2024 8:37 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote: >>> NSW Fair Trading Commissioner Rod Stowe has warned NSW consumers >>> not to waste their money buying the products. > > Says nothing about any testing! Is English not your first language or something? Read the article. Again. The very first sentence states: > Consumer advocates have warned motorists to stay away from > electrolysed rust reduction devices after Western Australian > authorities proved the products don’t work. Pay attention to the salient point: "Western Australian authorities proved the products don't work". Do you not get this, or do you just think they're making it up? > The "proof" was just disputing the > theory. I don't call that a "test". I guess you must use the word > differently. Proving something doesn't work is a little more than just disputing the theory. -- -- -- Regards, Noddy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-27 07:38 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <65dd04d0@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #35749 |
In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote: > On 26/02/2024 8:37 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote: > >>>> NSW Fair Trading Commissioner Rod Stowe has warned NSW consumers >>>> not to waste their money buying the products. >> >> Says nothing about any testing! > > Is English not your first language or something? Read the article. > Again. The very first sentence states: > >> Consumer advocates have warned motorists to stay away from >> electrolysed rust reduction devices after Western Australian >> authorities proved the products don't work. > > Pay attention to the salient point: "Western Australian authorities > proved the products don't work". > > Do you not get this, or do you just think they're making it up? That article is slightly misrepresenting the actual notice from the Commissioner for Consumer Protection: https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/files/highperfcorpmotoroneeuoct15.pdf That document doesn't say anything about "proof" that the devices don't work, just that those companies making them hadn't a basis for claiming they did. In other words, presumably, those companies hadn't done satisfactory testing themselves. It's the same as in Canada where two manufacturers responded to the same thing with actual tests proving that their devices did work, and their authorities relented. That's explained very clearly in this letter sent by the Canadian Competition Bureau: https://www.autosaverobd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Let_Competition-Bureau_17Jul2008.pdf So I intend to copy the design of those Canadian devices. > > The "proof" was just disputing the theory. I don't call that a > "test". I guess you must use the word >> differently. > > Proving something doesn't work is a little more than just disputing the > theory. EXACTLY, that's why I'm interested in doing my own tests to prove it to my own satisfaction. Frankly I'm still skeptical of the Canadian tests, but short of finding other real experiments documented (and I only found those Canadian ones by clicking through two other Wikipedia pages about rust in general), they're the last word on the matter. That I can find. Actual tests: https://www.autosaverobd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ITS-REPORT-015-05015-4-_3-15-2007_.pdf https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/CC_Tech.pdf -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-27 13:32 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <l44vtlFbsdnU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #35749 |
On 26/2/2024 11:26 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 26/02/2024 8:37 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
>
>>>> NSW Fair Trading Commissioner Rod Stowe has warned NSW consumers
>>>> not to waste their money buying the products.
>>
>> Says nothing about any testing!
>
> Is English not your first language or something? Read the article.
> Again. The very first sentence states:
>
>> Consumer advocates have warned motorists to stay away from
>> electrolysed rust reduction devices after Western Australian
>> authorities proved the products don’t work.
>
> Pay attention to the salient point: "Western Australian authorities
> proved the products don't work".
>
> Do you not get this, or do you just think they're making it up?
>
> > The "proof" was just disputing the > theory. I don't call that a
> "test". I guess you must use the word
>> differently.
>
> Proving something doesn't work is a little more than just disputing the
> theory.
Yeah, like the groundwork I had to put in to prove beyond any doubt that
*all* your claims to trade qualifications are just so much bullshit and
self aggrandisement that you *invented* to cover your extreme
inferiority complex. No records in your name in the PROV archives, no
entries in your name in the trade registration database. You're screwed!
--
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | OldIron <Hans.Andnees@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-27 06:51 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <uritkp$2o8e7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35741 |
Noddy wrote: > On 26/02/2024 2:57 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote: >>> Sounds like Kevvy is one of those dudes who asks for opinions and >>> then shoots them all to shit when they don't support his own >>> beliefs. >> >> The question I asked was: >> >> Anyone know of existing DIY projects or authoritative proof that it >> doesn't (or does!) work? >> >> I didn't want opinions, I wanted authoritative proof. > > In other words you searched on Google and didn't find anything, and that > didn't tell you enough to give up on the idea... Huge LOL! So what does not being able to find anything on your fabled business, qualifications, property ownership etc etc etc tell everyone Fraudster? What a buffoon you are. alvey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-27 13:27 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <l44vldFbsdnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #35753 |
On 27/2/2024 7:51 am, OldIron wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 26/02/2024 2:57 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
>>>> Sounds like Kevvy is one of those dudes who asks for opinions and
>>>> then shoots them all to shit when they don't support his own
>>>> beliefs.
>>>
>>> The question I asked was:
>>>
>>> Anyone know of existing DIY projects or authoritative proof that it
>>> doesn't (or does!) work?
>>>
>>> I didn't want opinions, I wanted authoritative proof.
>>
>> In other words you searched on Google and didn't find anything, and that
>> didn't tell you enough to give up on the idea...
>
> Huge LOL!
>
> So what does not being able to find anything on your fabled business,
> qualifications, property ownership etc etc etc tell everyone Fraudster?
Not even in the trade registration database and that *last resort* of
data storage/archival of apprenticeships and trade qualifications, the
PROV archives. That told me, in no uncertain terms, that Darren was an
*inveterate liar* but, hey, I already knew that! ;-)
>
> What a buffoon you are.
>
I don't think buffoon quite covers Darren's malady.
>
> alvey
>
>
--
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 14:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <65dc10ed@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #35732 |
In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote: > On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> > Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem? Nope, though not in the desert either. South-Western Victoria. Rusty vehicles seem common enough out here, I know a few people similarly afflicted, one further North with the roof rusting away on his 80s Land Cruiser. > 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. OK, maybe the climate is more dry where you live. A neighbour has similar rust problems developing on a late 80s truck, which spent almost all its life in a shed (though not fully enclosed). I'm pretty sure that at least one vehicle where I've had rust _is_ made of galvanised steel. Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular stream of rust buckets. > 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. Maybe. Frankly I'm fed up with rust, so with the information suggesting they might work, it looks worth a try to me. I could be convinced otherwise, but not just by apparant popularity. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 17:00 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <l42nogF125eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #35737 |
On 26/2/2024 3:17 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote: >> On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> >> Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem? > > Nope, though not in the desert either. South-Western Victoria. > Rusty vehicles seem common enough out here, I know a few people > similarly afflicted, one further North with the roof rusting away > on his 80s Land Cruiser. It was common on older vehicles and 80's is old for vehicles. Last vehicle that I owned that had significant rust problems was a 1979 Landcruiser, nothing structural, mostly below the tail lamps and the bonnet, had the rust fixed properly by a good panel beater and resprayed and there was no sign of the rust returning when I sold it many years later. > >> 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. > > OK, maybe the climate is more dry where you live. Doubt that its much dryer approx 55km west of Melb CBD. Do you drive a lot on dirt roads? If so its possible that the dirt/mud gets stuck under the vehicle and stays damp which causes rust, periodically cleaning underneath may be a way of reducing rust problems. A neighbour has > similar rust problems developing on a late 80s truck, which spent > almost all its life in a shed (though not fully enclosed). I'm > pretty sure that at least one vehicle where I've had rust _is_ > made of galvanised steel. What make and model? Shed floor concrete or dirt/gravel? > > Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular > stream of rust buckets. Were they old cars? > >> 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. > > Maybe. Frankly I'm fed up with rust, so with the information > suggesting they might work, it looks worth a try to me. I could be > convinced otherwise, but not just by apparant popularity. > Only way to know is to fork out some cash, buy and try one, prices seem to vary from approx $190 up to $600 and that in itself is a problem, are the expensive units any better than the cheapies? -- Daryl
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 17:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <65dc4285@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #35738 |
In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote: > On 26/2/2024 3:17 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote: >>> On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> >>> Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem? >> >> Nope, though not in the desert either. South-Western Victoria. >> Rusty vehicles seem common enough out here, I know a few people >> similarly afflicted, one further North with the roof rusting away >> on his 80s Land Cruiser. > > It was common on older vehicles and 80's is old for vehicles. Yes the vehicles I have the rust problems with are from the 80s and 90s. If you thought I meant using the device for a new car, then I can see how it might not be useful. >> OK, maybe the climate is more dry where you live. > > Doubt that its much dryer approx 55km west of Melb CBD. > Do you drive a lot on dirt roads? > If so its possible that the dirt/mud gets stuck under the vehicle and > stays damp which causes rust, periodically cleaning underneath may be a > way of reducing rust problems. Yes, I live on a gravel road and am aware of that, but the rust issues are usually with the upper body, not so bad underneath or in wheel arches. Only the outer layer of dust/clay stays damp where it builds up underneath, the clay in the soil resists the moisture penetrating back. >> I'm pretty sure that at least one vehicle where I've had rust >> _is_ made of galvanised steel. > > What make and model? OK well I'm asking for trouble with that one really because it's a 1989 Jaguar XJ40. Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the once-galvanised tray is most of the trouble, but the cab's started showing surface rust lately too. The truck is a 1980 International ACCO 610A, where the cab is possibly better than most others still out there, but that still makes it pretty rusty. > Shed floor concrete or dirt/gravel? Gravel. >> Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular >> stream of rust buckets. > > Were they old cars? Yep. Except for a 2010s Land Cruiser I saw on their website, clearly used regularly on the coast. The chassis was flaking with big chunks of rust on that, but it looked like it'd come from a gov. dept., probably using it around beaches. >>> 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. >> >> Maybe. Frankly I'm fed up with rust, so with the information >> suggesting they might work, it looks worth a try to me. I could be >> convinced otherwise, but not just by apparant popularity. >> > > Only way to know is to fork out some cash, buy and try one, prices seem > to vary from approx $190 up to $600 and that in itself is a problem, are > the expensive units any better than the cheapies? I won't buy one, I'll make one. Whether they work or not, the price the commercial ones sell for is a rip off. My idea from the start has been to work out the signals they use (which I've now found in the docs for the Canadian devices), then build my own equivalents, which I'll test on some scratched painted sheet metal that I'll leave outside for a few months. As I noted in earlier posts the signals seem to be pretty simple. The only cost might be for some conductive glue for the anode pads, and a day tinkering with electronics, which I enjoy anyway. I won't be that surprised if it doesn't do anything, but since I haven't seen any tests showing that they don't work, I'd like to find out for sure. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noddy <me@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 20:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <urhl5k$2f2j9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35739 |
On 26/02/2024 6:49 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote: >> What make and model? > > OK well I'm asking for trouble with that one really because it's a > 1989 Jaguar XJ40. Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the > once-galvanised tray is most of the trouble, but the cab's started > showing surface rust lately too. The truck is a 1980 International > ACCO 610A, where the cab is possibly better than most others still > out there, but that still makes it pretty rusty. Two of those three vehicles are world famous for rust issues. Your problem isn't where you live or the roads you use. It's the vehicles you own which were poorly built heaps of crap that are so notorious for rust issues that they would corrode in a hermetically sealed vacuum. -- -- -- Regards, Noddy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 21:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <l437r0F3e0jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #35739 |
On 26/2/2024 6:49 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote: >> On 26/2/2024 3:17 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote: >>>> On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>> >>>> Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem? >>> >>> Nope, though not in the desert either. South-Western Victoria. >>> Rusty vehicles seem common enough out here, I know a few people >>> similarly afflicted, one further North with the roof rusting away >>> on his 80s Land Cruiser. >> >> It was common on older vehicles and 80's is old for vehicles. > > Yes the vehicles I have the rust problems with are from the 80s and > 90s. If you thought I meant using the device for a new car, then > I can see how it might not be useful. > >>> OK, maybe the climate is more dry where you live. >> >> Doubt that its much dryer approx 55km west of Melb CBD. >> Do you drive a lot on dirt roads? >> If so its possible that the dirt/mud gets stuck under the vehicle and >> stays damp which causes rust, periodically cleaning underneath may be a >> way of reducing rust problems. > > Yes, I live on a gravel road and am aware of that, but the rust > issues are usually with the upper body, not so bad underneath or > in wheel arches. Only the outer layer of dust/clay stays damp where > it builds up underneath, the clay in the soil resists the moisture > penetrating back. > >>> I'm pretty sure that at least one vehicle where I've had rust >>> _is_ made of galvanised steel. >> >> What make and model? > > OK well I'm asking for trouble with that one really because it's a > 1989 Jaguar XJ40. Seems to be some debate on whether or not Jags were actually galvanized. https://www.jaguarforum.com/threads/galvanised-body-fact-or-myth.44736/ Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the > once-galvanised tray is most of the trouble, Once galvanized indicates that much of the gal has been rubbed off? If so bare steel doesn't have much rust resistance. but the cab's started > showing surface rust lately too. It is almost 30yrs old so not surprising that there is some rust. The truck is a 1980 International > ACCO 610A, where the cab is possibly better than most others still > out there, but that still makes it pretty rusty. Those trucks were notorious for rust, finding one without significant rust would be near impossible. > >> Shed floor concrete or dirt/gravel? > > Gravel. Sounds like that is at least part of the problem. > >>> Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular >>> stream of rust buckets. >> >> Were they old cars? > > Yep. Except for a 2010s Land Cruiser I saw on their website, > clearly used regularly on the coast. The chassis was flaking with > big chunks of rust on that, but it looked like it'd come from a > gov. dept., probably using it around beaches. Salt water will destroy even the very best vehicles so that really doesn't tell us all that much. I've seen an early 80's Ford Bronco that was less than 2 yrs old almost totally destroyed by rust mostly in the chassis area, some rust on the body but not too bad, it was used as a beach tour vehicle and spent nearly its entire life on a beach, Ford replaced the chassis under warranty. >>>> 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. >>> >>> Maybe. Frankly I'm fed up with rust, so with the information >>> suggesting they might work, it looks worth a try to me. I could be >>> convinced otherwise, but not just by apparant popularity. >>> >> >> Only way to know is to fork out some cash, buy and try one, prices seem >> to vary from approx $190 up to $600 and that in itself is a problem, are >> the expensive units any better than the cheapies? > > I won't buy one, I'll make one. Whether they work or not, the price > the commercial ones sell for is a rip off. My idea from the start > has been to work out the signals they use (which I've now > found in the docs for the Canadian devices), then build my own > equivalents, which I'll test on some scratched painted sheet metal > that I'll leave outside for a few months. As I noted in earlier > posts the signals seem to be pretty simple. The only cost might be > for some conductive glue for the anode pads, and a day tinkering > with electronics, which I enjoy anyway. > > I won't be that surprised if it doesn't do anything, but since I > haven't seen any tests showing that they don't work, I'd like to > find out for sure. > Worth a try if you have some spare time, just don't hold your breath expecting much of a result. -- Daryl
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-27 07:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <65dd0795@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #35747 |
In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote: > On 26/2/2024 6:49 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> >> OK well I'm asking for trouble with that one really because it's a >> 1989 Jaguar XJ40. > > Seems to be some debate on whether or not Jags were actually galvanized. > https://www.jaguarforum.com/threads/galvanised-body-fact-or-myth.44736/ OK, it looked galvanised in a wheel arch where some of the undercoat was chipped off, and there was no rust there even though the metal was (or at least looked) exposed. Probably just in certain spots like the forum thread says. > Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the >> once-galvanised tray is most of the trouble, > > Once galvanized indicates that much of the gal has been rubbed off? > If so bare steel doesn't have much rust resistance. > > but the cab's started >> showing surface rust lately too. > > It is almost 30yrs old so not surprising that there is some rust. I'm not surprised either. Such are valid use cases for a rust prevention device _if_ they worked, which was my only point. > The truck is a 1980 International >> ACCO 610A, where the cab is possibly better than most others still >> out there, but that still makes it pretty rusty. > > Those trucks were notorious for rust, finding one without significant > rust would be near impossible. Yes I more or less said that. At least the steel is farly thick so there's some time to catch it before you get a hole. >> I won't be that surprised if it doesn't do anything, but since I >> haven't seen any tests showing that they don't work, I'd like to >> find out for sure. >> > > Worth a try if you have some spare time, just don't hold your breath > expecting much of a result. Sure, I enjoy electronics tinkering anyway. More fun than arguing over what consitiutes an experiment/test, but I guess I forgot that aus.cars is only a place for arguments. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-27 09:33 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <l44hubF9pffU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #35755 |
On 27/2/2024 8:50 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote: >> On 26/2/2024 6:49 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> >>> OK well I'm asking for trouble with that one really because it's a >>> 1989 Jaguar XJ40. >> >> Seems to be some debate on whether or not Jags were actually galvanized. >> https://www.jaguarforum.com/threads/galvanised-body-fact-or-myth.44736/ > > OK, it looked galvanised in a wheel arch where some of the > undercoat was chipped off, and there was no rust there even though > the metal was (or at least looked) exposed. Probably just in > certain spots like the forum thread says. > >> Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the >>> once-galvanised tray is most of the trouble, >> >> Once galvanized indicates that much of the gal has been rubbed off? >> If so bare steel doesn't have much rust resistance. >> >> but the cab's started >>> showing surface rust lately too. >> >> It is almost 30yrs old so not surprising that there is some rust. > > I'm not surprised either. Such are valid use cases for a rust > prevention device _if_ they worked, which was my only point. Maybe but AFAIK they aren't that good at stopping existing rust from spreading, if they do work at all its when they are fitted to a new vehicle which has no rust. > >> The truck is a 1980 International >>> ACCO 610A, where the cab is possibly better than most others still >>> out there, but that still makes it pretty rusty. >> >> Those trucks were notorious for rust, finding one without significant >> rust would be near impossible. > > Yes I more or less said that. At least the steel is farly thick so > there's some time to catch it before you get a hole. > >>> I won't be that surprised if it doesn't do anything, but since I >>> haven't seen any tests showing that they don't work, I'd like to >>> find out for sure. >>> >> >> Worth a try if you have some spare time, just don't hold your breath >> expecting much of a result. > > Sure, I enjoy electronics tinkering anyway. More fun than arguing > over what consitiutes an experiment/test, but I guess I forgot that > aus.cars is only a place for arguments. > The problem with doing any sort of testing in an automotive environment is that there are a lot of variables, the steel is not all exactly the same and the way they its treated also varies, the environment that cars live in can also vary considerably. You may have success testing a device on one car but a failure on an another making it very difficult to be 100% sure whether or not the device works. Testing will be a bit like testing those kangaroo whistles that we fitted to the front of our cars, we didn't hit any kangaroos so did they work or did we just get lucky. -- Daryl
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-27 11:38 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <65dd3d16@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #35757 |
In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote: > On 27/2/2024 8:50 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote: >>> On 26/2/2024 6:49 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> but the cab's started >>>> showing surface rust lately too. >>> >>> It is almost 30yrs old so not surprising that there is some rust. >> >> I'm not surprised either. Such are valid use cases for a rust >> prevention device _if_ they worked, which was my only point. > > Maybe but AFAIK they aren't that good at stopping existing rust from > spreading, if they do work at all its when they are fitted to a new > vehicle which has no rust. My idea is that I fix any existing rust like I've been doing, then the device (if I can make one that seems to work in my tests) helps resist new rust spots appearing in completely different areas. Hopefully the repaired areas too. >>> Worth a try if you have some spare time, just don't hold your breath >>> expecting much of a result. >> >> Sure, I enjoy electronics tinkering anyway. More fun than arguing >> over what consitiutes an experiment/test, but I guess I forgot that >> aus.cars is only a place for arguments. >> > > The problem with doing any sort of testing in an automotive environment > is that there are a lot of variables, the steel is not all exactly the > same and the way they its treated also varies, the environment that cars > live in can also vary considerably. > You may have success testing a device on one car but a failure on an > another making it very difficult to be 100% sure whether or not the > device works. Indeed that's why I intend to test it first away from a car like I said before in my reply to Ozix. Inspired heavily by the tests the Canadians did, but without the salt spray. Similar to this, but without the humidity-controlled chamber so it might take many months just being left outside (avoiding bird poo might be a problem): https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/Smithers.pdf That'll also allow testing different signals and voltages. Mind you, I won't be able to use automotive sheet metal and paint like in their tests. Testing on individual car body panels like undamaged doors removed from the same old car might be better, but I don't know where I'd get those cheap locally. The idea is to scratch them and then watch for rust developing in the scratch. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-27 21:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <l45rr3FfurqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #35755 |
On 27/2/2024 8:50 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
>> On 26/2/2024 6:49 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>
>>> OK well I'm asking for trouble with that one really because it's a
>>> 1989 Jaguar XJ40.
>>
>> Seems to be some debate on whether or not Jags were actually galvanized.
>> https://www.jaguarforum.com/threads/galvanised-body-fact-or-myth.44736/
>
> OK, it looked galvanised in a wheel arch where some of the
> undercoat was chipped off, and there was no rust there even though
> the metal was (or at least looked) exposed. Probably just in
> certain spots like the forum thread says.
It most likely was galvanised and, I might add, the Jaguar was one of
the forerunners in a process that became common during the 90s. Pretty
much every car this century has been hot dipped galvanized and that
process began in the US and AU around 1995.
The problem with paint as a protective barrier against corrosion is that
it needs 100% coverage. A scratch or stone chip is all that is needed to
provide a start point for rust to begin attacking the base metal
underneath - so you once needed to fix up stone chips and scratches
immediately.
Enter the galvanising process. Cars tend to be hot dipped because it is
the easiest process and the coating is thicker - that's important. The
layer of zinc functions first as a barrier, just like paint, to those
atmospheric components that would like to react with the iron - water
being the perfect example. Secondly the chemical reaction of the zinc
with, say, the water, creates a thin layer best known as a patina. In
this process the water splits into ions and reacts with the zinc thereby
creating the "protective" patina layer. This patina forms a second
barrier to keep the underlying steel free of rust. Thirdly, there is
cathodic protection. In the electrochemical reaction, the cathode
(steel) gets protected whilst the anode (zinc) gets sacrificed. Because
of the hot dipped galvanizing, the paint coat on modern cars is purely
decorative.
That sacrifice is important to note - because it is time constrained.
Car bodies will be protected for some 30 years and, by then, enough of
the zinc will have been sacrificed for rust to begin to take over. At 30
years, most cars would be well and truly past their use by date and well
on their way to being a recycled Chinese car. So, if you have a car
older than 30 years, it might be time to pay more attention to rust
prevention and general maintenance.
This reminds me of a little debacle with a Chinese ute on the Gold Coast
recently;
https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qcat/2021/316
Was the LDV ute hot dipped galvanised? I suspect it wasn't. Or if it
was, it was a piss poor job.
>
>> Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the
>>> once-galvanised tray is most of the trouble,
>>
>> Once galvanized indicates that much of the gal has been rubbed off?
>> If so bare steel doesn't have much rust resistance.
>>
>> but the cab's started
>>> showing surface rust lately too.
>>
>> It is almost 30yrs old so not surprising that there is some rust.
>
> I'm not surprised either. Such are valid use cases for a rust
> prevention device _if_ they worked, which was my only point.
>
>> The truck is a 1980 International
>>> ACCO 610A, where the cab is possibly better than most others still
>>> out there, but that still makes it pretty rusty.
>>
>> Those trucks were notorious for rust, finding one without significant
>> rust would be near impossible.
>
> Yes I more or less said that. At least the steel is farly thick so
> there's some time to catch it before you get a hole.
Any vehicle from the 70s or 80s was notorious for rust. Note too, most
of these rusted *from the inside* exacerbated by lack of owner attention
to cleaning out mud collection points, unblocking drain holes, and the like.
>
>>> I won't be that surprised if it doesn't do anything, but since I
>>> haven't seen any tests showing that they don't work, I'd like to
>>> find out for sure.
>>>
>>
>> Worth a try if you have some spare time, just don't hold your breath
>> expecting much of a result.
>
> Sure, I enjoy electronics tinkering anyway. More fun than arguing
> over what consitiutes an experiment/test, but I guess I forgot that
> aus.cars is only a place for arguments.
>
--
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-28 08:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <op.2jtk2df7byq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #35769 |
Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote > Computer Nerd Kev wrote >> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote >>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote >>>> OK well I'm asking for trouble with that onereally because it's a >>>> 1989 Jaguar XJ40. >>> Seems to be some debate on whether or not Jags were actually >>> galvanized. >>> https://www.jaguarforum.com/threads/galvanised-body-fact-or-myth.44736/ >> OK, it looked galvanised in a wheel arch where some of the >> undercoat was chipped off, and there was no rust there even though >> the metal was (or at least looked) exposed. Probably just in >> certain spots like the forum thread says. > It most likely was galvanised and, I might add, the Jaguar was one of > the forerunners in a process that became common during the 90s. Pretty > much every car this century has been hot dipped galvanized and that > process began in the US and AU around 1995. > The problem with paint as a protective barrier against corrosion is that > it needs 100% coverage. A scratch or stone chip is all that is needed to > provide a start point for rust to begin attacking the base metal > underneath - so you once needed to fix up stone chips and scratches > immediately. I never did and never had a problem with rust. > Enter the galvanising process. Cars tend to be hot dipped because it is > the easiest process and the coating is thicker - that's important. The > layer of zinc functions first as a barrier, just like paint, to those > atmospheric components that would like to react with the iron - water > being the perfect example. Secondly the chemical reaction of the zinc > with, say, the water, creates a thin layer best known as a patina. In > this process the water splits into ions and reacts with the zinc thereby > creating the "protective" patina layer. That mangles the chemistry involved. > This patina forms a second barrier to keep the underlying steel free of > rust. Thirdly, there is cathodic protection. In the electrochemical > reaction, the cathode (steel) gets protected whilst the anode (zinc) > gets sacrificed. Doesnt happen with cars. > Because of the hot dipped galvanizing, the paint coaton modern cars is > purely decorative. > That sacrifice is important to note - because it is time constrained. > Car bodies will be protected for some 30 years and, by then, enoughof > the zinc will have been sacrificed for rust to begin to take over. Utterly mangled all over again. > At 30 years, most cars would be well and truly past their use by date BULLSHIT. > and well on their way to being a recycled Chinese car. Not because of rust. > So, if you have a car older than 30 years, it might be time topay more > attention to rust prevention and general maintenance. Depends on the car. > This reminds me of a little debacle with a Chinese ute on the Gold Coast > recently; > https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qcat/2021/316 > Was the LDV ute hot dipped galvanised? I suspect it wasn't. Or if it > was, it was a piss poor job. >>> Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the >>>> once-galvanised tray is most of the trouble, >>> >>> Once galvanized indicates that much of the gal has been rubbed off? >>> If so bare steel doesn't have much rust resistance. >>> >>> but the cab's started >>>> showing surface rust lately too. >>> >>> It is almost 30yrs old so not surprising that there is some rust. > > >> I'm not surprised either. Such are valid use cases for a rust >> prevention device _if_ they worked, which was my only point. >> >>> The truck is a 1980 International >>>> ACCO 610A, where the cab is possibly better than most others still >>>> out there, but that still makes it pretty rusty. >>> >>> Those trucks were notorious for rust, finding one without significant >>> rust would be near impossible. >> Yes I more or less said that. At least the steel is farly thick so >> there's some time to catch it before you get a hole. > Any vehicle from the 70s or 80s was notorious for rust. BULLSHIT. > Note too, most of these rusted *from the inside* exacerbatedby lack of > owner attention to cleaning out mud collectionpoints, unblocking drain > holes, and the like. Never needed to do that and I used dirt roads extensively. >>>> I won't be that surprised if it doesn't do anything, but since I >>>> haven't seen any tests showing that they don't work, I'd like to >>>> find out for sure. >>>> >>> >>> Worth a try if you have some spare time, just don't hold your breath >>> expecting much of a result. >> Sure, I enjoy electronics tinkering anyway. More fun than arguing >> over what consitiutes an experiment/test, but I guess I forgot that >> aus.cars is only a place for arguments. >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noddy <me@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 20:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <urhktm$2f2j1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35737 |
On 26/02/2024 3:17 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote: >> On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> >> Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem? > > Nope, though not in the desert either. South-Western Victoria. > Rusty vehicles seem common enough out here, I know a few people > similarly afflicted, one further North with the roof rusting away > on his 80s Land Cruiser. An "80's Land Cruiser" is a 40 year old vehicle :) >> 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. > > OK, maybe the climate is more dry where you live. A neighbour has > similar rust problems developing on a late 80s truck, which spent > almost all its life in a shed (though not fully enclosed). I'm > pretty sure that at least one vehicle where I've had rust _is_ > made of galvanised steel. Again, anything made in the 1980's is 40 years old, and rust in vehicles of that age is not uncommon. Some vehicles are quite famous for it. Secondly, galvanised steel is not a common car body material. At least not where high levels of zinc are concerned. The main reason for that is that Zinc and paint don't happily co-exist. Automotive body manufacturers for the last 50 years at least have been using cold rolled steel for most of their body pressings, which is subject to an "e-coat" process that uses small quantities of zinc and other materials to provide a corrosion protection layer. It's a form of "galvanising" per se', but it's nothing like the kind of Zinc based glavanising you commonly see on things like trailers, tools and bolts. > Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular > stream of rust buckets. Do they? >> 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. > > Maybe. Frankly I'm fed up with rust, so with the information > suggesting they might work, it looks worth a try to me. I could be > convinced otherwise, but not just by apparant popularity. Interesting. You have virtually *nothing* to convince you that the process is either successful *or* popular but because you found a link to some sketchy testing that suggests that it *might* work you're willing to forgo tried and tested methods and pursue an "easy" option. Good luck with your projects :) -- -- -- Regards, Noddy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 19:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <65dc5e90@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #35742 |
In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote: > On 26/02/2024 3:17 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular >> stream of rust buckets. > > Do they? "Corrosion - entire vehicle" is their term for it. >>> 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. >> >> Maybe. Frankly I'm fed up with rust, so with the information >> suggesting they might work, it looks worth a try to me. I could be >> convinced otherwise, but not just by apparant popularity. > > Interesting. You have virtually *nothing* to convince you that the > process is either successful *or* popular but because you found a link > to some sketchy testing that suggests that it *might* work you're > willing to forgo tried and tested methods and pursue an "easy" option. No, of course I'm not willing to forgo tried and tested methods. I'm willing to do a test on scrap metal because it seems nobody has published such tests except those ones you call sketchy which say it works. Either way I'll still keep treating any rust I encounter conventionally. > Good luck with your projects :) It'll be a fun electronics experiment. One of my more practical ones overall. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noddy <me@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 23:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <uri06g$2hb6a$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35745 |
On 26/02/2024 8:49 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote: >> On 26/02/2024 3:17 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular >>> stream of rust buckets. >> >> Do they? > > "Corrosion - entire vehicle" is their term for it. Yeah, it's a generic description for finding rust in more than one place :) >> Interesting. You have virtually *nothing* to convince you that the >> process is either successful *or* popular but because you found a link >> to some sketchy testing that suggests that it *might* work you're >> willing to forgo tried and tested methods and pursue an "easy" option. > > No, of course I'm not willing to forgo tried and tested methods. I'm > willing to do a test on scrap metal because it seems nobody has > published such tests except those ones you call sketchy which say > it works. Either way I'll still keep treating any rust I encounter > conventionally. > >> Good luck with your projects :) > > It'll be a fun electronics experiment. One of my more practical > ones overall. Yeah, I don't think so, but anyway. It would seem that the lack of any success stories about this shit tells you nothing. <shrug> -- -- -- Regards, Noddy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 05:58 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <urgd6h$23ikr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35718 |
On 25/02/2024 8:50 pm, Noddy wrote: > On 25/02/2024 11:36 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> 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". 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. > > 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. > > As a result, an Enforceable Undertaking under the Australian Consumer > Law has been made on behalf of all ACL regulators. > > CECI distributors High Performance Corporation Pty Ltd (HPC) and > MotorOne Group Pty Ltd (MotorOne) have been ordered to stop the sale of > and secure refunds for consumers who bought the devices, which were > falsely claimed to reduce rust and corrosion by as much as 80 percent in > motor vehicles. > > > [end quote] > > 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.... > Note: WA comsumer protection laws habe also prevent unqualified mechanics like you (aka shonks) from working as 'mechanics' for about 20 years to protect consumers. Different story in backward Victoria where unqualified and incompetent shonks are still freely allowed to operate and pretend they are mechanics - and haven't you made the most of that... -- In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a proven liar." On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote: "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | aus.electronics
csiph-web