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 | 13 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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-06 08:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <65e798ed@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #35787 |
In aus.electronics Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes: >> In aus.electronics Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: >>> chop <chop654@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev >>>> <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >>>>> 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. >> >> That's a shame, it would have been interesting to compare his >> device and test rig with the successful Canadian lab 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 >> >> And "Final Coat" have had their device's experimental results >> published in scientific papers (the same testing that the Canadian >> regulator also accepted): >> https://www.finalcoat.com/news.html >> >> But details of a test done without any financial motivation for its >> success would be very interesting. > > I took a quick look at the ITS report pdf. It says the test was done by > immersing the panel in a saline solution. > > My friend was able to get some painted panels from an engineer who > worked at Ford and was interested in the test. He then hooked up one of > the devices (he borrowed it from someone who owned one) and sprayed the > panels with a periodic spray of saline solution. I think the full test > ran for 6 months. > > The idea behind the spray was that it would more closely approximate > normal usage on a car, and not marine usage, where things like > sacrificial anodes for corrosion protection are common. That's how the other test in the second link was performed (described from PDF page 7). However the spray there was continuous rather than periodic, so your friend's test could have been more realistic in that regard. > The painted panels started corroding within a couple of months and were > pretty damaged by the end of the test. A lot of the corrosion started at > the edges where the metal was bare, but there was corrosion that started > in the middle of the panels as well. I figured that the edge corrosion > would be similar to what would happen to a surface with a scratch in the > paint. I'm not sure about that, and it would depend then on how the panels were cut. > He did have some panels in another enclosure that were not connected to > one of the devices. There wasn't much, if any difference between the > sets of panels. They all rusted. > > The test was done in the late '80s, so I'd expect that coatings > technology has greatly improved since then, plus I know that at least > some (all?) of the car makers now use galvanized steel for body > parts. There's possibly less need for one of these devices now than > there was. My interest is in protecting older vehicles, from the 80s and 90s. > I'm not telling anyone what to buy or not buy, but I know that for > myself I wouldn't spend the money on these gadgets. I'd rather put that > money into washing my car to try to clean the salt off. > > I think my friend wound up having more fun building the test rigs than > anything else. Running the tests themselves was about as fun as watching > grass grow. :-) The awkward part for doing tests myself seems to be cheaply aquiring car body panels to test it on. I could fall back on just trying it on cheap galvanised sheet metal and assuming the results would relate to automotive panels, but much of the documentation suggests that the glvanising plays an important role in how the devices work, and looking around at all the galvanised steel rusting at completely different rates around my property (some probably on the vehicles that I want to protect) demonstrates that it varies a lot in quality. > BTW, I'm not disputing the electrochemistry that's the basis of these > devices. I'm just not convinced that it applies to these devices in the > real world on cars being driven on roads, particularly in areas where > they're exposed to salt. Salt isn't actually a factor for me in (non-coastal) Australia, which is why this test in a humidity chamber is more relevent: https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/Smithers.pdf However it's unclear why that wasn't sufficient for that company to fend off the Canadian regulators who required they do that other test later before allowing sales to resume. Perhaps there was an issue with the independence of the lab? It looks like the only way to be sure is to try it myself. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "cshenk" <cshenk@virginia-beach.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-05 23:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wfidnSPwCJEZOHr4nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #35787 |
Bud Frede wrote: > not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes: > > > In aus.electronics Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > >> chop <chop654@gmail.com> writes: > >>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev > >>> <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: > >>> 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. > > > > That's a shame, it would have been interesting to compare his > > device and test rig with the successful Canadian lab 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 > > > > And "Final Coat" have had their device's experimental results > > published in scientific papers (the same testing that the Canadian > > regulator also accepted): > > https://www.finalcoat.com/news.html > > > > But details of a test done without any financial motivation for its > > success would be very interesting. > > I took a quick look at the ITS report pdf. It says the test was done > by immersing the panel in a saline solution. > > My friend was able to get some painted panels from an engineer who > worked at Ford and was interested in the test. He then hooked up one > of the devices (he borrowed it from someone who owned one) and > sprayed the panels with a periodic spray of saline solution. I think > the full test ran for 6 months. > > The idea behind the spray was that it would more closely approximate > normal usage on a car, and not marine usage, where things like > sacrificial anodes for corrosion protection are common. > > The painted panels started corroding within a couple of months and > were pretty damaged by the end of the test. A lot of the corrosion > started at the edges where the metal was bare, but there was > corrosion that started in the middle of the panels as well. I figured > that the edge corrosion would be similar to what would happen to a > surface with a scratch in the paint. > > He did have some panels in another enclosure that were not connected > to one of the devices. There wasn't much, if any difference between > the sets of panels. They all rusted. > > The test was done in the late '80s, so I'd expect that coatings > technology has greatly improved since then, plus I know that at least > some (all?) of the car makers now use galvanized steel for body > parts. There's possibly less need for one of these devices now than > there was. > > I'm not telling anyone what to buy or not buy, but I know that for > myself I wouldn't spend the money on these gadgets. I'd rather put > that money into washing my car to try to clean the salt off. > > I think my friend wound up having more fun building the test rigs than > anything else. Running the tests themselves was about as fun as > watching grass grow. :-) > > BTW, I'm not disputing the electrochemistry that's the basis of these > devices. I'm just not convinced that it applies to these devices in > the real world on cars being driven on roads, particularly in areas > where they're exposed to salt. Interesting read and thanks!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-05 17:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <us8ife$23rr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35791 |
On 3/5/2024 3:06 PM, cshenk wrote: > Bud Frede wrote: > >> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes: >> >>> In aus.electronics Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: >>>> chop <chop654@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev >>>>> <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: >>>>> 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. >>> >>> That's a shame, it would have been interesting to compare his >>> device and test rig with the successful Canadian lab 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 >>> >>> And "Final Coat" have had their device's experimental results >>> published in scientific papers (the same testing that the Canadian >>> regulator also accepted): >>> https://www.finalcoat.com/news.html >>> >>> But details of a test done without any financial motivation for its >>> success would be very interesting. >> >> I took a quick look at the ITS report pdf. It says the test was done >> by immersing the panel in a saline solution. >> >> My friend was able to get some painted panels from an engineer who >> worked at Ford and was interested in the test. He then hooked up one >> of the devices (he borrowed it from someone who owned one) and >> sprayed the panels with a periodic spray of saline solution. I think >> the full test ran for 6 months. >> >> The idea behind the spray was that it would more closely approximate >> normal usage on a car, and not marine usage, where things like >> sacrificial anodes for corrosion protection are common. >> >> The painted panels started corroding within a couple of months and >> were pretty damaged by the end of the test. A lot of the corrosion >> started at the edges where the metal was bare, but there was >> corrosion that started in the middle of the panels as well. I figured >> that the edge corrosion would be similar to what would happen to a >> surface with a scratch in the paint. >> >> He did have some panels in another enclosure that were not connected >> to one of the devices. There wasn't much, if any difference between >> the sets of panels. They all rusted. >> >> The test was done in the late '80s, so I'd expect that coatings >> technology has greatly improved since then, plus I know that at least >> some (all?) of the car makers now use galvanized steel for body >> parts. There's possibly less need for one of these devices now than >> there was. >> >> I'm not telling anyone what to buy or not buy, but I know that for >> myself I wouldn't spend the money on these gadgets. I'd rather put >> that money into washing my car to try to clean the salt off. >> >> I think my friend wound up having more fun building the test rigs than >> anything else. Running the tests themselves was about as fun as >> watching grass grow. :-) >> >> BTW, I'm not disputing the electrochemistry that's the basis of these >> devices. I'm just not convinced that it applies to these devices in >> the real world on cars being driven on roads, particularly in areas >> where they're exposed to salt. > > Interesting read and thanks! So, if you park your car immersed in a pool of salt water it works. How does that relate to a car parked in air?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 05:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <op.2jpmy4wwbyq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #35714 |
Noddy <me@home.com> wrote > Computer Nerd Kev wrote >> Noddy <me@home.com> wrote >>> and while electric processes exist to remove rust, >>> there are none that prevent rust from occurring. >> I hadn't looked into removing rust electrically either actually, >> but it looks like that'd require dunking your car in a tank of >> water. I'll stick to rust converter goos and a Dremmel. > Stick to whatever you like, but there are no electronic rust prevention > processes out there that are anything other than snake oil. Canada proves that that is a lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "floffy@gallaxial.com" <floffy@gallaxial.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 13:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <f82ntihm13iovbr0opkmoemdnmst114eer@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #35719 |
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 05:29:18 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >Noddy <me@home.com> wrote >> Computer Nerd Kev wrote >>> Noddy <me@home.com> wrote > >>>> and while electric processes exist to remove rust, >>>> there are none that prevent rust from occurring. > >>> I hadn't looked into removing rust electrically either actually, >>> but it looks like that'd require dunking your car in a tank of >>> water. I'll stick to rust converter goos and a Dremmel. > >> Stick to whatever you like, but there are no electronic rust prevention >> processes out there that are anything other than snake oil. > >Canada proves that that is a lie. its Exist device that help to prevent RUST ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noddy <me@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 07:33 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <urg86s$221r9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35719 |
On 26/02/2024 5:29 am, Rod Speed wrote: > Noddy <me@home.com> wrote >> Computer Nerd Kev wrote >>> Noddy <me@home.com> wrote > >>>> and while electric processes exist to remove rust, >>>> there are none that prevent rust from occurring. > >>> I hadn't looked into removing rust electrically either actually, >>> but it looks like that'd require dunking your car in a tank of >>> water. I'll stick to rust converter goos and a Dremmel. > >> Stick to whatever you like, but there are no electronic rust >> prevention processes out there that are anything other than snake oil. > > Canada proves that that is a lie. All Canada has ever proved is that people can survive in minus 40 degree temperatures, and all you ever continue to prove is that you're a fucking idiot who will comment regardless of whether you know anything about what's being discussed or not. Just do the world a massive favour and shut the fuck up. -- -- -- Regards, Noddy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 06:00 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <urgdaj$23ikr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35724 |
On 26/02/2024 4:33 am, Noddy wrote: > On 26/02/2024 5:29 am, Rod Speed wrote: >> Noddy <me@home.com> wrote >>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote >>>> Noddy <me@home.com> wrote >> >>>>> and while electric processes exist to remove rust, >>>>> there are none that prevent rust from occurring. >> >>>> I hadn't looked into removing rust electrically either actually, >>>> but it looks like that'd require dunking your car in a tank of >>>> water. I'll stick to rust converter goos and a Dremmel. >> >>> Stick to whatever you like, but there are no electronic rust >>> prevention processes out there that are anything other than snake oil. >> >> Canada proves that that is a lie. > > All Canada has ever proved is that people can survive in minus 40 degree > temperatures, and all you ever continue to prove is that you're a > fucking idiot who will comment regardless of whether you know anything > about what's being discussed or not. > Talking to yourself now? > Just do the world a massive favour and shut the fuck up. Advice you'd do well to follow yourself you incompetent clown. -- 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]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 05:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <op.2jpnk2lvbyq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #35708 |
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote > While looking into rust-proof paints, I stumbled uponthe world of > electronic rust prevention gadgets: > https://www.erps.com.au/how-electronic-rust-protection-works/ > https://endrust.com.au/products-services/Electronic-Rust-Protection/ > https://nilrust.com.au/product-details/electronic-rustproofing/ > etc. > Much like with the paints, the question is whether it works, or > whether it's just snake oil. Rust preventing paint certainly does work. I built my house in the very early 70s and the entire structure is RHS, and did the two big gates out of RHS too. Used killrust paint and nothing has rusted in what is now more than 50 years. And my 2006 Hyundai Getz has not rust at all, not even the decent gouge that some arsehole managed to do in the woolys car park right in the middle of the driver's door, with what appears to have been the corner of a ute flat tray. And I have done nothing to protect the gouge at all. > It's supposed to use conductive pads > to create a static charge on the steel vehicle body by using the > paint as a dilectric layer forming a capacitor. The charge prevents > oxidation of the metal. Can't see that and my formal qualifications are in chemistry. > In this discussion it's mentioned that by relying on the paint to > form the dilectric, it won't work in areas where the paint is weak, > which is where rust would start anyway: > https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/electronic-rust-protection-for-cars.13859/ What is the detail of the car ? Modern cars are much better than the old ones. > Then again much of my trouble is from cavities in old vehicle > bodies rusting out from inside*. Yeah, I did manage to do that myself with my previous 73 VW Golf. I knew that the windsceen leaked and the car always lived outside. Eventually that did rust thru the floor that way. > The paint on the outside is OK > until the rust eats right through, Yep, that's what happened with the Golf. > so would the electric charge preventthat rust starting on the inner > side? Can't see it myself, particularly with the door frames where rust usually happens due to blocked water drain holes in the older fords and holdens and pom cars. > This also says "There are to date no official reports which show > that cars with electronic rust proofing have less corrosion than > they would without the device": > https://www.autotrainingcentre.com/blog/truth-electronic-rust-protection/ > On that basis I certainly wouldn't buy one at the prices these > systems are advertised at, but it seems they should be temptingly > easy to make, and maybe try out in some experiments. > I can't find any DIY designs online, but the specifications on this > page suggests that the electronics just make a 50V peak-to-peak AC > voltage at 12.5KHz which is applied to the adheasive contact pads > (copper tape?): > https://endrust.com.au/product/2-pad-cat-electronic-rust-protection-system/ > Input Voltage > 12V/24VDC > Operating Voltage > 9V-32VDC > Output Transformers > Two (2) > Output Power (to each Pad) > 50Vpk-pk @ 12.5kHz > Ground > Negative > Current Draw > 25ma +/- > If that's all there is to it, then it shouldn't be hard to build my > own equivalent. > Anyone know of existing DIY projects or authoritative proof that it > doesn't (or does!) work? > * Waxy cavity coatings like this were actually what I was > investigating when I stumbled onto these gizmos: > http://www.septone.com.au/product/l/rustproof-4l
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 08:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <65dbbc55@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #35721 |
In aus.electronics Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote > >> While looking into rust-proof paints, I stumbled uponthe world of >> electronic rust prevention gadgets: >> https://www.erps.com.au/how-electronic-rust-protection-works/ >> https://endrust.com.au/products-services/Electronic-Rust-Protection/ >> https://nilrust.com.au/product-details/electronic-rustproofing/ >> etc. > >> Much like with the paints, the question is whether it works, or >> whether it's just snake oil. > > Rust preventing paint certainly does work. > > I built my house in the very early 70s and the entire > structure is RHS, and did the two big gates out of > RHS too. Used killrust paint and nothing has rusted > in what is now more than 50 years. > > And my 2006 Hyundai Getz has not rust at all, not > even the decent gouge that some arsehole managed > to do in the woolys car park right in the middle of the > driver's door, with what appears to have been the > corner of a ute flat tray. And I have done nothing to > protect the gouge at all. Yes I don't disagree at all that a good paint job works wonders, but once it starts to wear down the ideal solution is to pull the thing completely to pieces, sand blast it, and paint again. I'm interested in whether these devices can help put that stage off a bit longer, because it isn't going to happen. I'd still keep grinding out and painting over rust spots where they're found. In places I can't get to I've been spraying fish oil, though I'm thinking about using these wax sprays for a more permanent fix. Painting over fish oil has also lasted on the cab of an 80s truck I tried that on a few years ago. New rust in different spots has started to appear though, as it does. >> It's supposed to use conductive pads >> to create a static charge on the steel vehicle body by using the >> paint as a dilectric layer forming a capacitor. The charge prevents >> oxidation of the metal. > > Can't see that and my formal qualifications are in chemistry. OK. Some documents suggest it helps the zinc in paint or galvalised steel to protect the steel more effectively, but there doesn't seem to be a concrete theory. >> In this discussion it's mentioned that by relying on the paint to >> form the dilectric, it won't work in areas where the paint is weak, >> which is where rust would start anyway: >> https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/electronic-rust-protection-for-cars.13859/ > > What is the detail of the car ? Modern > cars are much better than the old ones. These are 80s and 90s vehicles. All kept under roofs but open to the elements. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 09:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <op.2jpy2qa3byq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #35728 |
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote >>> While looking into rust-proof paints, I stumbled uponthe world of >>> electronic rust prevention gadgets: >>> https://www.erps.com.au/how-electronic-rust-protection-works/ >>> https://endrust.com.au/products-services/Electronic-Rust-Protection/ >>> https://nilrust.com.au/product-details/electronic-rustproofing/ >>> etc. >> >>> Much like with the paints, the question is whether it works, or >>> whether it's just snake oil. >> >> Rust preventing paint certainly does work. >> >> I built my house in the very early 70s and the entire >> structure is RHS, and did the two big gates out of >> RHS too. Used killrust paint and nothing has rusted >> in what is now more than 50 years. >> >> And my 2006 Hyundai Getz has not rust at all, not >> even the decent gouge that some arsehole managed >> to do in the woolys car park right in the middle of the >> driver's door, with what appears to have been the >> corner of a ute flat tray. And I have done nothing to >> protect the gouge at all. > > Yes I don't disagree at all that a good paint job works wonders, > but once it starts to wear down the ideal solution is to pull the > thing completely to pieces, sand blast it, and paint again. Never had to do anything like that with the Golf and itsstill fine even now after more than 50 years. The only problem was my stupidity of not fixing the known windscreen leak. > I'm interested in whether these devices can help put thatstage off a > bit longer, Can't see it myself. The explanation of how they allegedly work just doesnt hold water scientifically. They may work in Canada with salted winter roads but we dont have anything like that here. > because it isn't going to happen. Mate of mine did that with a very old chev vintage car. I was amazed because we helped him move what was quite literally just a pile of rusty metal. It was amazing what he turned it into, just as good as when it was new. Massive amount of work tho. > I'd still keep grinding out and painting over rust spots where > they're found. In places I can't get to I've been spraying fish > oil, though I'm thinking about using these wax sprays for a more > permanent fix. Painting over fish oil has also lasted on the cab > of an 80s truck I tried that on a few years ago. New rust in > different spots has started to appear though, as it does. >>> It's supposed to use conductive pads >>> to create a static charge on the steel vehicle body by using the >>> paint as a dilectric layer forming a capacitor. The charge prevents >>> oxidation of the metal. >> Can't see that and my formal qualifications are in chemistry. > OK. Some documents suggest it helps the zinc in paint or galvalised > steel to protect the steel more effectively, but there doesn't seem > to be a concrete theory. That does get used with ships, but that's a completely different environment with a path for the electrical current. I live in an irrigation system and the control structures are all quite literally made of stainless steel now. >>> In this discussion it's mentioned that by relying on the paint to >>> form the dilectric, it won't work in areas where the paint is weak, >>> which is where rust would start anyway: >>> https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/electronic-rust-protection-for-cars.13859/ >> >> What is the detail of the car ? Modern >> cars are much better than the old ones. > > These are 80s and 90s vehicles. All kept under roofs but open to > the elements. My 73 Golf does fine apart from my stupidity with the windscreen leak. and it has never lived under a roof and still doesnt. No body rust at all anywhere except inside in the floor due to the leak.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-26 08:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <l41uifFrqq6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #35708 |
On 25/02/2024 1:34 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > While looking into rust-proof paints, I stumbled upon the world of > electronic rust prevention gadgets: > https://www.erps.com.au/how-electronic-rust-protection-works/ > https://endrust.com.au/products-services/Electronic-Rust-Protection/ > https://nilrust.com.au/product-details/electronic-rustproofing/ > etc. > > Much like with the paints, the question is whether it works, or > whether it's just snake oil. It's supposed to use conductive pads > to create a static charge on the steel vehicle body by using the > paint as a dilectric layer forming a capacitor. The charge prevents > oxidation of the metal. > > In this discussion it's mentioned that by relying on the paint to > form the dilectric, it won't work in areas where the paint is weak, > which is where rust would start anyway: > https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/electronic-rust-protection-for-cars.13859/ > > Then again much of my trouble is from cavities in old vehicle > bodies rusting out from inside*. The paint on the outside is OK > until the rust eats right through, so would the electric charge > prevent that rust starting on the inner side? > > This also says "There are to date no official reports which show > that cars with electronic rust proofing have less corrosion than > they would without the device": > https://www.autotrainingcentre.com/blog/truth-electronic-rust-protection/ > > On that basis I certainly wouldn't buy one at the prices these > systems are advertised at, but it seems they should be temptingly > easy to make, and maybe try out in some experiments. > > I can't find any DIY designs online, but the specifications on this > page suggests that the electronics just make a 50V peak-to-peak AC > voltage at 12.5KHz which is applied to the adheasive contact pads > (copper tape?): > https://endrust.com.au/product/2-pad-cat-electronic-rust-protection-system/ > Input Voltage > 12V/24VDC > Operating Voltage > 9V-32VDC > Output Transformers > Two (2) > Output Power (to each Pad) > 50Vpk-pk @ 12.5kHz > Ground > Negative > Current Draw > 25ma +/- > > If that's all there is to it, then it shouldn't be hard to build my > own equivalent. > > Anyone know of existing DIY projects or authoritative proof that it > doesn't (or does!) work? > > * Waxy cavity coatings like this were actually what I was > investigating when I stumbled onto these gizmos: > http://www.septone.com.au/product/l/rustproof-4l > If it worked, every ship owner in the world would be using it. Sacrificial anodes work under water, but ship's topsides still rust, and require constant re-painting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-27 11:45 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <65dd3eae@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #35730 |
In aus.electronics Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: > > If it worked, every ship owner in the world would be using it. > Sacrificial anodes work under water, but ship's topsides still rust, and > require constant re-painting. It might be because on ships, unless the superstructure is electrically insulated from the hull, any exposed metal (eg. from chipped paint) on the hull would conduct through the salt water between the paint and the metal, shorting out the capacitive charge between them which the device creates. But that's guesswork. I'm most interested to see documented studies and tests proving either way. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-27 19:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <op.2jsj90l6byq249@pvr2.lan> |
| In reply to | #35759 |
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote > Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote >> If it worked, every ship owner in the world would be using it. >> Sacrificial anodes work under water, but ship'stopsides still rust, >> and require constant re-painting. > It might be because on ships, unless the superstructure is > electrically insulated from the hull, Which they never are. > any exposed metal (eg. from chipped paint) on the hull The chipped paint is only on the superstructure. > would conduct through the salt water No salt water on forming a conductive path to the superstructure. > between the paint and the metal,shorting out the capacitive charge > between them which the device creates. No such animal, and doesnt explain why ships dont have that. > But that's guesswork. Fantasy, actually. > I'm most interested to see documentedstudies and tests proving either > way. No such animal
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | aus.electronics
csiph-web