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
Anyone know of existing DIY projects or authoritative proof that it
doesn't (or does!) work?
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.
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Anyone know of existing DIY projects or authoritative proof that it
doesn't (or does!) work?
I am pretty sure it was denounced as a scam years ago.
When I last searched for it, up came an Isuzu dealer in NSW who
was still selling it as an add-on.
On 25/02/2024 2:34 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
<snip>
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.
Don't waste your time. It's already been done. They don't work.
The best prevention against rust is to ensure that the metal is
adequately coated with something that forms a durable and effective
moisture barrier,
and while electric processes exist to remove rust,
there are none that prevent rust from occurring.
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.
On 25/02/2024 5:31 pm, Computer Nerd Kev 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.
On 25/02/2024 5:31 pm, Computer Nerd Kev 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.
On 25/2/2024 8:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
Stick to whatever you like, but there are no electronic rust preventionIf 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
processes out there that are anything other than snake oil.
they don't seem to be popular in those places.
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 preventionIf they did work they would be very popular in places like the UK or Nth
processes out there that are anything other than snake oil.
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.
https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/buying-a-car/features/shonky-rust-reduction-devices-debunked
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.
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 preventionIf they did work they would be very popular in places like the UK or Nth
processes out there that are anything other than snake oil.
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".
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.
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.
On 25/02/2024 11:36 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
But if there are actual records of people doing such tests and
showing that it's all lies, which I can see myself (not just hear
rumor of), then I wouldn't.
Here:
https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/buying-a-car/features/shonky-rust-reduction-devices-debunked
[quote]
WA Consumer Protection found the theory behind the computerised
electronic corrosion inhibitors (CECI) - that rust is attracted to a sacrificial piece of metal using positive electrical current - could
only work in practice if the car it was attached to was submerged in water.
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....
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....
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.
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.
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
In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
On 25/02/2024 11:36 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
But if there are actual records of people doing such tests and
showing that it's all lies, which I can see myself (not just hear
rumor of), then I wouldn't.
Here:
https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/buying-a-car/features/shonky-rust-reduction-devices-debunked
[quote]
WA Consumer Protection found the theory behind the computerised
electronic corrosion inhibitors (CECI) - that rust is attracted to a
sacrificial piece of metal using positive electrical current - could
only work in practice if the car it was attached to was submerged in water.
Thanks, however that's the same thing the Canadian regulator
claimed, as reported on the Wikipedia page. Then the Canadians
backed down when two of the manufacturers there had tests done
by recognised labs showing that their particular devices did
reduce rust.
It could be that the Aussie devices are/were doing it wrong, or
those tests didn't represent read-world conditions, but I'd like
to see actual tests disproving the Canadian claims seeing
as their authorities had to back down on the "broken theory"
argument. For now I'm focusing on those as the devices
to try and replicate based on patents and the test reports.
The thing that makes me most suspicious is that they're charging
$300-$1000+ for these systems which so far as I can see would cost
a tenth of that or less to make. That sort of profiteering suggests
some dodgyness. But then again the same's probably true of many
paints and anti-rust "treatments".
Government consumer protection agencies would *not* be ordering these
products off the market and people to be refunded if they worked.
It's that simple....
Ah yeah, but the Canadians are *not* doing that anymore,
therefore...
In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
On 25/02/2024 11:36 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
But if there are actual records of people doing such tests and
showing that it's all lies, which I can see myself (not just hear
rumor of), then I wouldn't.
Here:
https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/buying-a-car/features/shonky-rust-reduction-devices-debunked
[quote]
WA Consumer Protection found the theory behind the computerised
electronic corrosion inhibitors (CECI) - that rust is attracted to a
sacrificial piece of metal using positive electrical current - could
only work in practice if the car it was attached to was submerged in water.
Thanks, however that's the same thing the Canadian regulator
claimed, as reported on the Wikipedia page. Then the Canadians
backed down when two of the manufacturers there had tests done
by recognised labs showing that their particular devices did
reduce rust.
It could be that the Aussie devices are/were doing it wrong, or
those tests didn't represent read-world conditions, but I'd like
to see actual tests disproving the Canadian claims seeing
as their authorities had to back down on the "broken theory"
argument. For now I'm focusing on those as the devices
to try and replicate based on patents and the test reports.
The thing that makes me most suspicious is that they're charging
$300-$1000+ for these systems which so far as I can see would cost
a tenth of that or less to make. That sort of profiteering suggests
some dodgyness. But then again the same's probably true of many
paints and anti-rust "treatments".
Government consumer protection agencies would *not* be ordering these
products off the market and people to be refunded if they worked.
It's that simple....
Ah yeah, but the Canadians are *not* doing that anymore,
therefore...
On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Ah yeah, but the Canadians are *not* doing that anymore,Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem?
therefore...
Rust on cars hasn't been a significant issue in Australia for many many years, in general our climate isn't damp enough for it to be an issue
and car rust proofing from the factory is much improved.
I own 2 cars that are more than 20yrs old and no rust on either of them
so whether or not those electronic rust devices work is pretty much irrelevant to most car owners.
Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal evidence then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't almost
standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
indication that they simply don't work as advertised.
On 26/02/2024 12:38 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Ah yeah, but the Canadians are *not* doing that anymore,Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem?
therefore...
Rust on cars hasn't been a significant issue in Australia for many
many years, in general our climate isn't damp enough for it to be an
issue and car rust proofing from the factory is much improved.
I own 2 cars that are more than 20yrs old and no rust on either of
them so whether or not those electronic rust devices work is pretty
much irrelevant to most car owners.
Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it
certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal
evidence then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't
almost standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
indication that they simply don't work as advertised.
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.
Just go ahead and do your testing Kev. Sounds like you have little else
to amuse yourself with....
On 26/02/2024 12:38 pm, Daryl wrote:
On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Ah yeah, but the Canadians are *not* doing that anymore,Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem?
therefore...
Rust on cars hasn't been a significant issue in Australia for many
many years, in general our climate isn't damp enough for it to be an
issue and car rust proofing from the factory is much improved.
I own 2 cars that are more than 20yrs old and no rust on either of
them so whether or not those electronic rust devices work is pretty
much irrelevant to most car owners.
Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it
certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal
evidence then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't
almost standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
indication that they simply don't work as advertised.
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.
Just go ahead and do your testing Kev. Sounds like you have little else
to amuse yourself with....
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.
Just go ahead and do your testing Kev. Sounds like you have little else
to amuse yourself with....
On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem?
Rust on cars hasn't been a significant issue in Australia for many many years, in general our climate isn't damp enough for it to be an issue
and car rust proofing from the factory is much improved.
I own 2 cars that are more than 20yrs old and no rust on either of them
so whether or not those electronic rust devices work is pretty much irrelevant to most car owners.
Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal evidence then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't almost
standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
indication that they simply don't work as advertised.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
On 26/2/2024 12:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
Sounds like he's trying to treat some older trucks that already have
rust issues and I don't think that those devices are going to be much
help on a vehicle that already has significant rust.
The XD panelvan that I owned many years ago had quite a bit of rust in
the bottom of the doors when I bought it, I cleared the blocked drain
holes, got rid of as much of the surface rust as possible then treated
the area with fish oil which stopped the rust from getting any worse.
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.
I did find some of that in the Canadian tests, saying that the
devices do work, though I _am_ still skeptical.
You told me experiments had been tried and failed, but no references
to who/what/when/where.
https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/buying-a-car/features/shonky-rust-reduction-devices-debunked
Consumer advocates have warned motorists to stay away from
electrolysed rust reduction devices after Western Australian
authorities proved the products don’t work.
NSW Fair Trading Commissioner Rod Stowe has warned NSW consumers not
to waste their money buying the products.
I also thought there might have been DIY projects online or in
magazines, but it seems not.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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?
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 :)
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> 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".
That may just be because the car manufacturers currently
do a good enough job with the paint so they aren't necessary
I have added alt.home.repair which has lots of north americans
and likely Clare Snyder who is actually a male, whose first name
is Clarence who is a very experience mechanic may comment.
I sure wouldn't pay hundreds
for one, but if the root of the thing is just applying simple
electrical signals to the paint surface, it's an easy thing to test
a DIY equivalent on some bits of scrap. Some of the patents contain
useful details.
But if there are actual records of people doing such tests and
showing that it's all lies, which I can see myself (not just hear
rumor of), then I wouldn't.
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.
once-galvanised tray is most of the trouble,
showing surface rust lately too.
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.
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.
chop <chop654@gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
<not@telling.you.invalid> 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".
That may just be because the car manufacturers currently
do a good enough job with the paint so they aren't necessary
I have added alt.home.repair which has lots of north americans
and likely Clare Snyder who is actually a male, whose first name
is Clarence who is a very experience mechanic may comment.
I sure wouldn't pay hundreds
for one, but if the root of the thing is just applying simple
electrical signals to the paint surface, it's an easy thing to test
a DIY equivalent on some bits of scrap. Some of the patents contain
useful details.
But if there are actual records of people doing such tests and
showing that it's all lies, which I can see myself (not just hear
rumor of), then I wouldn't.
A friend of mine tested this in the lab when I was in college. The
devices don't work. They've been around for decades and they've never
worked.
He wrote a paper on it for the class he was in, but I don't think it was
ever published since it just debunked some junk science and didn't
actually represent any new and valuable research in terms of chemistry.
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!
Consumer advocates have warned motorists to stay away from
electrolysed rust reduction devices after Western Australian
authorities proved the products don’t work.
The "proof" was just disputing the > theory. I don't call that a"test". I guess you must use the word
differently.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
On 26/02/2024 22:05, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In aus.electronics Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:It seems strange that I've owed a car for 17 years and when scrapped
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.
because of mechanical problems that were uneconomic to fix there wasn't
a trace of rust on any of the body panels. My car wasn't fitted with one
of these anti-rust wonder products. Perhaps European car manufactures
take a lot more care with the paint technology and build quality?
In general, from what I see on certain Youtube videos cars that spend
most of their life in somewhere like Florida have little underbody rust whereas the same car model that has spent its life in a state where the
roads need to be salted for most of the winter have a significant amount
of rust. Even on fairly young cars the effort required to remove fixings (bolts etc.) to replace components is higher on cars that have spent
their life further North.
How representative of rust problems on cars is the test detailed above performed on two body panels? The main problem is not necessarily body panels but rust destroying chassis parts etc. beneath the car.
On 26/02/2024 22:05, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
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.
It seems strange that I've owed a car for 17 years and when scrapped
because of mechanical problems that were uneconomic to fix there wasn't
a trace of rust on any of the body panels. My car wasn't fitted with one
of these anti-rustÿ wonder products. Perhaps European car manufactures
take a lot more care with the paint technology and build quality?
It seems strange that I've owed a car for 17 years and when scrapped
because of mechanical problems that were uneconomic to fix there
wasn't a trace of rust on any of the body panels.
Nope, nothing strange about that.
My car wasn't fitted with oneÿ of these anti-rustÿ wonder products.
Perhaps European car manufacturesÿ take a lot morecare with the paint
technology and build quality?
Clearly not true of Jags and the BMC crap.
In general, from what I see on certain Youtube videos cars that spend
most of their life in somewhere like Florida have little underbody
rust whereas the same car model that has spent its life in a state
where the roads need to be salted for most of the winter have a
significant amount of rust. Even on fairly young cars the effort
required to remove fixings (bolts etc.) to replace components is
higher on cars that have spent their life further North.
How representative of rust problems on cars is the test detailed above
performed on two body panels?ÿ The main problem is not
necessarilybodyÿ panels but rust destroying chassis parts etc. beneath
the car.
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.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 08:27:21 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 26/02/2024 22:05, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:REPORT-015-05015-4-_3-15-2007_.pdf
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-
https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/CC_Tech.pdfIt seems strange that I've owed a car for 17 years and when scrapped
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.
because of mechanical problems that were uneconomic to fix there wasn't
a trace of rust on any of the body panels. My car wasn't fitted with one
of these anti-rust wonder products. Perhaps European car manufactures
take a lot more care with the paint technology and build quality?
In general, from what I see on certain Youtube videos cars that spend
most of their life in somewhere like Florida have little underbody rust
whereas the same car model that has spent its life in a state where the
roads need to be salted for most of the winter have a significant amount
of rust. Even on fairly young cars the effort required to remove fixings
(bolts etc.) to replace components is higher on cars that have spent
their life further North.
How representative of rust problems on cars is the test detailed above
performed on two body panels? The main problem is not necessarily body
panels but rust destroying chassis parts etc. beneath the car.
My Citroen XM had a zinc plated body and doors.
On 27/2/2024 7:38 pm, jon@home.org wrote:body and doors.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 08:27:21 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 26/02/2024 22:05, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:REPORT-015-05015-4-_3-15-2007_.pdf
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-
https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/CC_Tech.pdfIt seems strange that I've owed a car for 17 years and when scrapped
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.
because of mechanical problems that were uneconomic to fix there
wasn't a trace of rust on any of the body panels. My car wasn't fitted
with one of these anti-rust wonder products. Perhaps European car
manufactures take a lot more care with the paint technology and build
quality?
In general, from what I see on certain Youtube videos cars that spend
most of their life in somewhere like Florida have little underbody
rust whereas the same car model that has spent its life in a state
where the roads need to be salted for most of the winter have a
significant amount of rust. Even on fairly young cars the effort
required to remove fixings (bolts etc.) to replace components is
higher on cars that have spent their life further North.
How representative of rust problems on cars is the test detailed above
performed on two body panels? The main problem is not necessarily
body panels but rust destroying chassis parts etc. beneath the car.
My Citroen XM had a zinc plated body and doors.
Well, they were in the era when galvanizing was becoming a thing, no
surprise there. What model was yours? My Citroen XM had a zinc plated
On 27/2/2024 7:27 pm, alan_m wrote:
On 26/02/2024 22:05, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In aus.electronics Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
chop <chop654@gmail.com> writes:That's a shame, it would have been interesting to compare his
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. >>>
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.
It seems strange that I've owed a car for 17 years and when scrapped because of mechanical problems that were uneconomic to fix there wasn't a trace of rust on any of the body panels. My car wasn't fitted with one of these anti-rustÿ wonder products. Perhaps European car manufactures take a lot more care with the paint technology and build quality?
Perhaps or because cars in Europe are subject to harsh winter conditions they take more care with body protection.
No such problem where I live in Melbourne Australia, our 3 cars are all German and not a spec of rust on any of them, 2 of them are 2002 models.
I've noticed that the paint on all 3 is hard compared to other cars I've owned especially Japanese cars, unsure whether that makes any difference.
How representative of rust problems on cars is the test detailed above performed on two body panels? The main problem is not necessarily body panels but rust destroying chassis parts etc. beneath the car.
On 2/27/2024 4:26 AM, Daryl wrote:
Cars are designed for global markets. If you are Tata, you don't
design a car and only test it in Mumbai. Say the boss says "let's sell
this car in Canada". If you are the responsible engineer, you can't
say to the boss "but, but, it will need to be tested in Finland
for cold start, and that will mean a one year wait for test completion".
Instead, you have to do your best, to design cars that work anywhere,
by testing them in extreme conditions. As a Mumbai car driver, you can
take comfort that your car starts in Finland.
The body work on cars, doesn't rust like it once did.
The frame and underneath of a car, that's another matter entirely.
You can replace all the suspension components on a car, during it life.
The coil springs can crack and need replacement (I had a cracked one). McPherson struts used to pop through, during a car life, but today,
as you're taking the car to the junk yard, the cap on the strut is
just starting to rust.
The bottom of a car, can be treated with undercoat. But, the treatment
types should be consistent. If you use a wax treatment, if the company
goes out of business, you need to find another company that uses wax
coats during touchups. This is why in some cases, you're just as well
off with oil spray treatments once or twice a year. There are more places that will do oil.
An oil spray starts with a cleaning, followed by the oil. And it's a selective
treatment, as you can't spray it on some things without damaging them.
And that should be enough. No need for gizmos or snake oil.
On 27-Feb-24 11:30, charles wrote:
In article <urka8m$3430f$1@dont-email.me>,I certainly wouldn't want my body parts treated in that manner.
ÿÿÿ David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
It seems strange that I've owed a car for 17 years and when scrapped >>>>> because of mechanical problems that were uneconomic to fix there
wasn't a trace of rust on any of the body panels.
Nope, nothing strange about that.
These days its more likely to electronics that fail, often because of
dried out electrolytic capacitors. Replacements are priced so that using >>> them would cost more than replacing the car
My car wasn't fitted with oneÿ of these anti-rustÿ wonder products.
Perhaps European car manufacturesÿ take a lot morecare with the paint >>>>> technology and build quality?
Clearly not true of Jags and the BMC crap.
Well BMC hasn't existed for over 50 years, nor has its successor British >>> Leyland which included Jaguar and Landrover.
Currently these brands are owned by Tata and whist the build quality has >>> improved, security hasn't and Range Rovers are almost uninsurable...
.. modern Jags seem as rust proof as any other car.
I had a trip round Toyata at Burnaston in the mid-1980s.ÿ They told me
that
the main cause of rust was manual handling of steel body parts before
painting. Fingers left minute traces of grease to which primer did not
adhere. All their body parts were handled by electromagnets.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 08:27:21 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 26/02/2024 22:05, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:REPORT-015-05015-4-_3-15-2007_.pdf
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-
https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/CC_Tech.pdfIt seems strange that I've owed a car for 17 years and when scrapped
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.
because of mechanical problems that were uneconomic to fix there wasn't
a trace of rust on any of the body panels. My car wasn't fitted with one
of these anti-rust wonder products. Perhaps European car manufactures
take a lot more care with the paint technology and build quality?
In general, from what I see on certain Youtube videos cars that spend
most of their life in somewhere like Florida have little underbody rust
whereas the same car model that has spent its life in a state where the
roads need to be salted for most of the winter have a significant amount
of rust. Even on fairly young cars the effort required to remove fixings
(bolts etc.) to replace components is higher on cars that have spent
their life further North.
How representative of rust problems on cars is the test detailed above
performed on two body panels? The main problem is not necessarily body
panels but rust destroying chassis parts etc. beneath the car.
My Citroen XM had a zinc plated body and doors.
In aus.electronics alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
How representative of rust problems on cars is the test detailed above
performed on two body panels? The main problem is not necessarily body
panels but rust destroying chassis parts etc. beneath the car.
My rust problems are in upper body panels, not the chassis. The
vehicles are from the 80s and 90s so it's had time to develop even
though there's no road salting going on here in Australia. But it's
from humidity and trapped moisture.
Those tests with salt spray are therefore actually less
representative of my conditions than this test which used a
humidity chamber:
https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/Smithers.pdf
So I know _I_ would benefit from slowing down the rust process in
body panels. If everyone else (except plenty of people with old
vehicles who I know in real life) thinks it's not a problem in the
first place, then maybe _that's_ why the devices aren't popular, as
many people keep pointing out. Then again there's a section for
rust-stopper paint products in every car parts store here, many
with equally dubious-sounding claims about painting over rust etc.
On 28/02/2024 8:23 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
My rust problems are in upper body panels, not the chassis. The
vehicles are from the 80s and 90s so it's had time to develop even
though there's no road salting going on here in Australia. But it's
from humidity and trapped moisture.
Your rust problems are caused by poor designed and built. You will not
solve your problems with electronic snake oil. You will *only* solve
your problems by dismantling the vehicle to the point where the known problem areas can be dressed and coated with an effective durable
moisture barrier, and then sealing the area to prevent ingress.
Those tests with salt spray are therefore actually less
representative of my conditions than this test which used a
humidity chamber:
https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/Smithers.pdf
So I know _I_ would benefit from slowing down the rust process in
body panels. If everyone else (except plenty of people with old
vehicles who I know in real life) thinks it's not a problem in the
first place, then maybe _that's_ why the devices aren't popular, as
many people keep pointing out.
They're not popular because they _don't_ _work_.
This is really basic. There is no magical process that prevents metal corrosion in free air, and if all it took was a 10 buck rectifier to
prevent vehicles from rusting manufacturers would have given up on the expensive process of multiple anti corrosion body dips on the assembly
line and just used one of these magical devices instead :)
On 28/02/2024 4:02 am, Paul wrote:
On 2/27/2024 4:26 AM, Daryl wrote:
Cars are designed for global markets. If you are Tata, you don't
design a car and only test it in Mumbai. Say the boss says "let's sell
this car in Canada". If you are the responsible engineer, you can't
say to the boss "but, but, it will need to be tested in Finland
for cold start, and that will mean a one year wait for test completion".
Instead, you have to do your best, to design cars that work anywhere,
by testing them in extreme conditions. As a Mumbai car driver, you can
take comfort that your car starts in Finland.
If only that were true. It was once, but not these days :)
Like any other consumer product today, cars are designed to a price
point and most of today's testing is simulated. The problem with that is that simulations will only ever pick up faults that the creators of the testing program have anticipated as being possible, which explains why
we see cars today fail within a short time with ridiculous issues that
would have been picked up in any kind of real world testing like that
which was carried out years ago.
In today's world it's all about money. Manufacturers want the fastest
return they can get on their R&D dollar, so they simulate the bulk of
their testing and get the car onto the market as quickly as possible so
they can start earning sales revenue. In doing so they use the initial buyers as beta testers, and as faults present themselves they
incorporate the fixes into the subsequent updated models.
The body work on cars, doesn't rust like it once did.
I assure you that steel bodywork used on cars today will rust just as quickly as it did in years gone by *if* it's exposed to the same levels
of moisture that older cars were.
Apart from using thinner materials, there has been no major change in
sheet metal processes in the last 50 years as far as car bodies are concerned. Where change *has* occurred is in the area of weather
protection. Cars today are very well sealed against road grime and
moisture compared to years ago with all kinds of inner splash shields, seals, deflectors, under body trays, you name it. All of it designed to
keep mud, water, grime or what have you from finding it's way into nooks
and crannies where it can sit and eat away at the metal and create a
hole where one isn't supposed to be.
The frame and underneath of a car, that's another matter entirely.
The overwhelming majority of cars built in the last 5 decades don't have
a "frame". They are Unibody construction, with the entire body made of
sheet metal.
You can replace all the suspension components on a car, during it life.
The coil springs can crack and need replacement (I had a cracked one).
McPherson struts used to pop through, during a car life, but today,
as you're taking the car to the junk yard, the cap on the strut is
just starting to rust.
Not sure what you're on about here....
The bottom of a car, can be treated with undercoat. But, the treatment
types should be consistent. If you use a wax treatment, if the company
goes out of business, you need to find another company that uses wax
coats during touchups. This is why in some cases, you're just as well
off with oil spray treatments once or twice a year. There are more places
that will do oil.
Car bodies are corrosion dipped at the factory during their manufacture.
An oil spray starts with a cleaning, followed by the oil. And it's a
selective
treatment, as you can't spray it on some things without damaging them.
And that should be enough. No need for gizmos or snake oil.
Sounds like you're talking about after market processes here, and if you
are then don't waste your money on oils or waxes as they're not very effective. If you're in an environment where you need to use a third
party under body coating, then the very best product you can ever use is body deadener, which in parts of the world is known as "body shultz".
It's a bitumen based rubberised coating that is *extremely* durable. It
only ever needs to be applied once, it is ridiculously effective and if
done correctly it will outlive the car.
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.
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.
Another aspect to these devices is their power consumption, to work they would need to be on 24/7, if a vehicle was parked for long periods of
time I'd expect that its battery would be drained fairly quickly even
more so on modern cars that already have power hungry devices such as security systems consuming power all the time.
To prevent battery drain the devices would need to be turned off when
the car wasn't running which must reduce the possibility of it working
even further.
not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
In aus.electronics Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:test >>>> a DIY equivalent on some bits of scrap. Some of the patents
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
contain >>>> useful details.
never >> worked.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
it was >> ever published since it just debunked some junk science and
He wrote a paper on it for the class he was in, but I don't think
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.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.
On 6/3/2024 12:49 am, 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:That's a shame, it would have been interesting to compare his
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. >>>
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.
Another aspect to these devices is their power consumption, to work they would need to be on 24/7, if a vehicle was parked for long periods of
time I'd expect that its battery would be drained fairly quickly even
more so on modern cars that already have power hungry devices such as security systems consuming power all the time.
To prevent battery drain the devices would need to be turned off when
the car wasn't running which must reduce the possibility of it working
even further.
In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
Another aspect to these devices is their power consumption, to work they
would need to be on 24/7, if a vehicle was parked for long periods of
time I'd expect that its battery would be drained fairly quickly even
more so on modern cars that already have power hungry devices such as
security systems consuming power all the time.
To prevent battery drain the devices would need to be turned off when
the car wasn't running which must reduce the possibility of it working
even further.
Or just plug it into a top-up charger when parked at home. A small
price to pay if they worked. In fact the Jag needs that anyway if
parked for many weeks because its electronics already pull too much
current while it's parked (a known issue with that model).
Bud Frede wrote:
not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:https://www.autosaverobd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ITS-REPORT-015-05015-4-_3-15-2007_.pdf
In aus.electronics Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:test >>>> a DIY equivalent on some bits of scrap. Some of the patents
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
contain >>>> useful details.
never >> worked.
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
it was >> ever published since it just debunked some junk science and
He wrote a paper on it for the class he was in, but I don't think
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.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!
All done *automatically* Daryl. The system controlling parasitic draws
has been in cars for, quite literally, *decades*. Please try to keep up.
On 06/03/2024 01:03, Xeno wrote:
All done *automatically* Daryl. The system controlling parasitic draws
has been in cars for, quite literally, *decades*. Please try to keep up.
The point being made is that for the device to stop rust it would have
to be powered 24/365. The car automatically turning off the anti rust
device means that the car isn't protected when parked up for any length
of time. Possible while parked up rust has better chance of taking hold
- no engine/exhaust heat to dry out damp and no motion vibration or fast airflow to throw off standing (small) pools of water.
On 7/3/2024 7:56 am, alan_m wrote:
The point being made is that for the device to stop rust it would haveExactly but that's a bit too complicated for Xeno to figure out, a rust control device would need to be always on, only way to prevent the cars battery going flat is to drive it often or to attach a charger whenever
to be powered 24/365. The car automatically turning off the anti rust
device means that the car isn't protected when parked up for any
length of time. Possible while parked up rust has better chance of
taking hold - no engine/exhaust heat to dry out damp and no motion
vibration or fast airflow to throw off standing (small) pools of water.
the car is parked.
On 7/03/2024 9:03 am, Daryl wrote:
On 7/3/2024 7:56 am, alan_m wrote:
The point being made is that for the device to stop rust it wouldExactly but that's a bit too complicated for Xeno to figure out, a
have to be powered 24/365. The car automatically turning off the anti
rust device means that the car isn't protected when parked up for any
length of time. Possible while parked up rust has better chance of
taking hold - no engine/exhaust heat to dry out damp and no motion
vibration or fast airflow to throw off standing (small) pools of water.
rust control device would need to be always on, only way to prevent
the cars battery going flat is to drive it often or to attach a
charger whenever the car is parked.
Exactly, and this is yet *another* example of the "teacher" being about
as clueless as you can possibly be.
On 7/03/2024 9:03 am, Daryl wrote:
On 7/3/2024 7:56 am, alan_m wrote:
The point being made is that for the device to stop rust it wouldExactly but that's a bit too complicated for Xeno to figure out, a
have to be powered 24/365. The car automatically turning off the anti
rust device means that the car isn't protected when parked up for any
length of time. Possible while parked up rust has better chance of
taking hold - no engine/exhaust heat to dry out damp and no motion
vibration or fast airflow to throw off standing (small) pools of water.
rust control device would need to be always on, only way to prevent
the cars battery going flat is to drive it often or to attach a
charger whenever the car is parked.
Exactly, and this is yet *another* example of the "teacher" being about
as clueless as you can possibly be.
On 8/3/2024 6:53 am, Clare Snyder wrote:
The point being made is that for the device to stop rust it would have
to be powered 24/365. The car automatically turning off the anti rust
device means that the car isn't protected when parked up for any length
of time. Possible while parked up rust has better chance of taking hold
- no engine/exhaust heat to dry out damp and no motion vibration or fast >>> airflow to throw off standing (small) pools of water.
They only draw less than 1 Ma of current. Some claim as little as
1/3 of a ma (most of that from the tiny LED that indicates it is on, I
That was my understanding, very little current draw.
would imagine) There does not need to be any current draw to provide a
difference of potential between 2 components, and it is that potential
Good point.
difference (basically voltage) that is supposed to prevent corrosion
I was under the impression some of them mentioned a *frequency* of some
sort but, as I have said previously, I have seen nothing in the way of detailed documentation on how they operate.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 6 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 15:47:36 |
| Calls: | 45 |
| Files: | 21,492 |
| Messages: | 62,938 |