DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention

[Computer Nerd Kev]

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

[Ozix]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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
http://www.septone.com.au/product/l/rustproof-4l

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.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Ozix

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Reading the Wikipedia article and looking through the references has
encouraged me. At least the two Canadian devices that had lab tests
done seemed to make a difference, in an area where the paint was
scratched through. They tested with salt spray though, whereas I
just want to protect against normal dampness and trapped moisture.

I'd like to try the same test leaving some scratched steel panels
outside for a month or two connected to different
signals/voltages/electrodes. I'm not sure where to find scrap sheet
metal with good paint though. Perhaps if I can get a broken fridge
off someone?

Post by Ozix
When I last searched for it, up came an Isuzu dealer in NSW who
was still selling it as an add-on.

There seem to be plenty of rust-preventative businesses selling
them all over Aus. But I guess we don't have the same laws as
Canada requiring public proof of their effectiveness, and I haven't
seen one that actually guarantees your car won't rust, just that
the device itself won't stop (not?) working.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Anyone know of existing DIY projects or authoritative proof that it
doesn't (or does!) work?

I've found where Wikipedia has this technology filed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathodic_protection#Automobiles

The PDFs in the references are very interesting. This summarises
one of the scientific tests and also reveals the waveform of
another system. 10V 3us pulses at 10KHz, which is rather
different to the other specs. That signal would be even easier
to generate.
https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/2018abstract.pdf

[Noddy]

On 25/02/2024 2:34 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

<snip>

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Noddy
<snip>

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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 only experiments I have found online, via the Wikipedia article
I found later, say the (Canadian) devices do work! So which ones
say they don't?

Post by Noddy
The best prevention against rust is to ensure that the metal is
adequately coated with something that forms a durable and effective
moisture barrier,

Well I'm better with a soldering iron than a spray can, and there
are some places that a spray can won't reach anyway (which is what
I was looking into those wax spray substances for).

Post by Noddy
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.

[Noddy]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Noddy
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.

[Xeno]

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Noddy
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.

Noting that the King of snake oil bullshit boasting is none other than
yourself! You, a parasite on the arse of the motor trade, with no trade
qualifications to speak of, trying to pretend you are an *authority* on
rust prevention processes! FFS, you only ever attended a hobby course at
Richmond TAFE in vehicle body repair and spray painting and now you're
trying to make yourself out as a *experience professional*? Don't make
me laugh Darren.

[Daryl]

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Noddy
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.

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.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Daryl

Post by Noddy
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.

[Noddy]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl

Post by Noddy
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.
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....

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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

[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".

Post by Noddy
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...

[Xeno]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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

[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".

Post by Noddy
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...

You may have, by now, observed that Noddy is a Googlemeister and nothing
more. Furthermore, his *research* (laughingly) has little, if any,
depth. That, along with the fact that he is the most inveterate liar
ever seen in newsgroups (proven), means that anything he utters on
pretty much any topic has to be taken with a truckload of salt.

ps. Easy to get rid of him, just ask him to stump up proof of his past
claims - like his 3 apprenticeships and 2 trade qualifications - that'll
make the bastard killfile you and run away as fast as his little legs
will carry him.

[Daryl]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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

[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".

Post by Noddy
Government consumer protection agencies would *not* be ordering these
products off the market and people to be refunded if they worked.
It's that simple....

Ah yeah, but the Canadians are *not* doing that anymore,
therefore...

Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem?
Rust on cars hasn't been a significant issue in Australia for many many
years, in general our climate isn't damp enough for it to be an issue
and car rust proofing from the factory is much improved.
I own 2 cars that are more than 20yrs old and no rust on either of them
so whether or not those electronic rust devices work is pretty much
irrelevant to most car owners.
Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it
certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal evidence
then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't almost
standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
indication that they simply don't work as advertised.

[Noddy]

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Ah yeah, but the Canadians are *not* doing that anymore,
therefore...

Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem?
Rust on cars hasn't been a significant issue in Australia for many many
years, in general our climate isn't damp enough for it to be an issue
and car rust proofing from the factory is much improved.
I own 2 cars that are more than 20yrs old and no rust on either of them
so whether or not those electronic rust devices work is pretty much
irrelevant to most car owners.
Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it
certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal evidence
then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't almost
standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
indication that they simply don't work as advertised.

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....

[Daryl]

Post by Noddy

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Ah yeah, but the Canadians are *not* doing that anymore,
therefore...

Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem?
Rust on cars hasn't been a significant issue in Australia for many
many years, in general our climate isn't damp enough for it to be an
issue and car rust proofing from the factory is much improved.
I own 2 cars that are more than 20yrs old and no rust on either of
them so whether or not those electronic rust devices work is pretty
much irrelevant to most car owners.
Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it
certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal
evidence then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't
almost standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
indication that they simply don't work as advertised.

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.

I was wondering the same thing.

Post by Noddy
Just go ahead and do your testing Kev. Sounds like you have little else
to amuse yourself with....

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.

[Noddy]

Post by Daryl
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.

I don't think they'll be much help on anything.

Post by Daryl
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.

[Xeno]

Post by Noddy

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Ah yeah, but the Canadians are *not* doing that anymore,
therefore...

Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem?
Rust on cars hasn't been a significant issue in Australia for many
many years, in general our climate isn't damp enough for it to be an
issue and car rust proofing from the factory is much improved.
I own 2 cars that are more than 20yrs old and no rust on either of
them so whether or not those electronic rust devices work is pretty
much irrelevant to most car owners.
Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it
certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal
evidence then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't
almost standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
indication that they simply don't work as advertised.

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.

Better than being one of those dudes who lies continually and makes self
aggrandising claims all the time. Know anyone like that Darren? Gaze
into any nearby mirror!

Post by Noddy
Just go ahead and do your testing Kev. Sounds like you have little else
to amuse yourself with....

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Noddy
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.

I also thought there might have been DIY projects online or in
magazines, but it seems not.

Post by Noddy
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.

[Noddy]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Noddy
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.

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 and thought you'd ask in
here instead.

Google should have told you all you needed to know. As others have said,
if it worked it would be popular and you'd find all the evidence you
need. But you didn't, than that tells you all you really need to know.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
I did find some of that in the Canadian tests, saying that the
devices do work, though I _am_ still skeptical.

If this is the kind of Canadian testing you're talking about, then the
results are *far* from credible.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/buying-a-car/features/shonky-rust-reduction-devices-debunked

Again,

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Consumer advocates have warned motorists to stay away from
electrolysed rust reduction devices after Western Australian
authorities proved the products don’t work.

and

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

And why do you think that is?

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Noddy
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, and unfortunately none exists.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
You told me experiments had been tried and failed, but no references
to who/what/when/where.

What I told you was that the things don't work. They have been around in
various form for decades, and various tests over the years have shown
them to be nothing but snake oil

What tests?

Post by Noddy
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

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/buying-a-car/features/shonky-rust-reduction-devices-debunked

Again,

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Consumer advocates have warned motorists to stay away from
electrolysed rust reduction devices after Western Australian
authorities proved the products don?t work.

and

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
NSW Fair Trading Commissioner Rod Stowe has warned NSW consumers not
to waste their money buying the products.

Says nothing about any testing! The "proof" was just disputing the
theory. I don't call that a "test". I guess you must use the word
differently.

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Noddy
Just go ahead and do your testing Kev. Sounds like you have little
else to amuse yourself with....

I've always got rust repairs to amuse myself with.

You sound like the kind of person who is looking for a magic fix for an
age old problem

Sure.

[Noddy]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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?

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
The "proof" was just disputing the > theory. I don't call that a

"test". I guess you must use the word

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
differently.

Proving something doesn't work is a little more than just disputing the
theory.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Consumer advocates have warned motorists to stay away from
electrolysed rust reduction devices after Western Australian
authorities proved the products don't work.

Pay attention to the salient point: "Western Australian authorities
proved the products don't work".
Do you not get this, or do you just think they're making it up?

That article is slightly misrepresenting the actual notice from the
Commissioner for Consumer Protection:
https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/files/highperfcorpmotoroneeuoct15.pdf

That document doesn't say anything about "proof" that the
devices don't work, just that those companies making them hadn't
a basis for claiming they did. In other words, presumably, those
companies hadn't done satisfactory testing themselves. It's the
same as in Canada where two manufacturers responded to the same
thing with actual tests proving that their devices did work, and
their authorities relented.

That's explained very clearly in this letter sent by the Canadian
Competition Bureau:
https://www.autosaverobd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Let_Competition-Bureau_17Jul2008.pdf

So I intend to copy the design of those Canadian devices.

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
The "proof" was just disputing the theory. I don't call that a

"test". I guess you must use the word

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
differently.

Proving something doesn't work is a little more than just disputing the
theory.

EXACTLY, that's why I'm interested in doing my own tests to prove
it to my own satisfaction. Frankly I'm still skeptical of the
Canadian tests, but short of finding other real experiments
documented (and I only found those Canadian ones by clicking through
two other Wikipedia pages about rust in general), they're the last
word on the matter. That I can find.

Actual tests:
https://www.autosaverobd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ITS-REPORT-015-05015-4-_3-15-2007_.pdf
https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/CC_Tech.pdf

[Xeno]

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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?

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
The "proof" was just disputing the > theory. I don't call that a

"test". I guess you must use the word

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
differently.

Proving something doesn't work is a little more than just disputing the
theory.

Yeah, like the groundwork I had to put in to prove beyond any doubt that
*all* your claims to trade qualifications are just so much bullshit and
self aggrandisement that you *invented* to cover your extreme
inferiority complex. No records in your name in the PROV archives, no
entries in your name in the trade registration database. You're screwed!

[OldIron]

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Noddy
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.

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

[Xeno]

Post by OldIron

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Noddy
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.

Anyone know of existing DIY projects or authoritative proof that it
doesn't (or does!) work?
I didn't want opinions, I wanted authoritative proof.

In other words you searched on Google and didn't find anything, and that
didn't tell you enough to give up on the idea...

Huge LOL!
So what does not being able to find anything on your fabled business,
qualifications, property ownership etc etc etc tell everyone Fraudster?

Not even in the trade registration database and that *last resort* of
data storage/archival of apprenticeships and trade qualifications, the
PROV archives. That told me, in no uncertain terms, that Darren was an
*inveterate liar* but, hey, I already knew that! ;-)

Post by OldIron
What a buffoon you are.

I don't think buffoon quite covers Darren's malady.

Post by OldIron
alvey

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Daryl
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.

Post by Daryl
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.

Post by Daryl
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.

[Daryl]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem?

Nope, though not in the desert either. South-Western Victoria.
Rusty vehicles seem common enough out here, I know a few people
similarly afflicted, one further North with the roof rusting away
on his 80s Land Cruiser.

It was common on older vehicles and 80's is old for vehicles.
Last vehicle that I owned that had significant rust problems was a 1979
Landcruiser, nothing structural, mostly below the tail lamps and the
bonnet, had the rust fixed properly by a good panel beater and resprayed
and there was no sign of the rust returning when I sold it many years later.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
Rust on cars hasn't been a significant issue in Australia for many many
years, in general our climate isn't damp enough for it to be an issue
and car rust proofing from the factory is much improved.
I own 2 cars that are more than 20yrs old and no rust on either of them
so whether or not those electronic rust devices work is pretty much
irrelevant to most car owners.

OK, maybe the climate is more dry where you live.

Doubt that its much dryer approx 55km west of Melb CBD.
Do you drive a lot on dirt roads?
If so its possible that the dirt/mud gets stuck under the vehicle and
stays damp which causes rust, periodically cleaning underneath may be a
way of reducing rust problems.

A neighbour has

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
similar rust problems developing on a late 80s truck, which spent
almost all its life in a shed (though not fully enclosed). I'm
pretty sure that at least one vehicle where I've had rust _is_
made of galvanised steel.

What make and model?
Shed floor concrete or dirt/gravel?

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular
stream of rust buckets.

Were they old cars?

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
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?

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
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.

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
I'm pretty sure that at least one vehicle where I've had rust
_is_ made of galvanised steel.

What make and model?

OK well I'm asking for trouble with that one really because it's a
1989 Jaguar XJ40. Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the
once-galvanised tray is most of the trouble, but the cab's started
showing surface rust lately too. The truck is a 1980 International
ACCO 610A, where the cab is possibly better than most others still
out there, but that still makes it pretty rusty.

Post by Daryl
Shed floor concrete or dirt/gravel?

Gravel.

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it
certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal evidence
then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't almost
standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
indication that they simply don't work as advertised.

Maybe. Frankly I'm fed up with rust, so with the information
suggesting they might work, it looks worth a try to me. I could be
convinced otherwise, but not just by apparant popularity.

Only way to know is to fork out some cash, buy and try one, prices seem
to vary from approx $190 up to $600 and that in itself is a problem, are
the expensive units any better than the cheapies?

I won't buy one, I'll make one. Whether they work or not, the price
the commercial ones sell for is a rip off. My idea from the start
has been to work out the signals they use (which I've now
found in the docs for the Canadian devices), then build my own
equivalents, which I'll test on some scratched painted sheet metal
that I'll leave outside for a few months. As I noted in earlier
posts the signals seem to be pretty simple. The only cost might be
for some conductive glue for the anode pads, and a day tinkering
with electronics, which I enjoy anyway.

I won't be that surprised if it doesn't do anything, but since I
haven't seen any tests showing that they don't work, I'd like to
find out for sure.

[Noddy]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
What make and model?

OK well I'm asking for trouble with that one really because it's a
1989 Jaguar XJ40. Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the
once-galvanised tray is most of the trouble, but the cab's started
showing surface rust lately too. The truck is a 1980 International
ACCO 610A, where the cab is possibly better than most others still
out there, but that still makes it pretty rusty.

Two of those three vehicles are world famous for rust issues. Your
problem isn't where you live or the roads you use. It's the vehicles you
own which were poorly built heaps of crap that are so notorious for rust
issues that they would corrode in a hermetically sealed vacuum.

[Daryl]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
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.

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
I'm pretty sure that at least one vehicle where I've had rust
_is_ made of galvanised steel.

What make and model?

OK well I'm asking for trouble with that one really because it's a
1989 Jaguar XJ40.

Seems to be some debate on whether or not Jags were actually galvanized.
https://www.jaguarforum.com/threads/galvanised-body-fact-or-myth.44736/

Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
showing surface rust lately too.

It is almost 30yrs old so not surprising that there is some rust.

The truck is a 1980 International

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
Shed floor concrete or dirt/gravel?

Gravel.

Sounds like that is at least part of the problem.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular
stream of rust buckets.

Were they old cars?

Yep. Except for a 2010s Land Cruiser I saw on their website,
clearly used regularly on the coast. The chassis was flaking with
big chunks of rust on that, but it looked like it'd come from a
gov. dept., probably using it around beaches.

Salt water will destroy even the very best vehicles so that really
doesn't tell us all that much.
I've seen an early 80's Ford Bronco that was less than 2 yrs old almost
totally destroyed by rust mostly in the chassis area, some rust on the
body but not too bad, it was used as a beach tour vehicle and spent
nearly its entire life on a beach, Ford replaced the chassis under warranty.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it
certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal evidence
then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't almost
standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
indication that they simply don't work as advertised.

Maybe. Frankly I'm fed up with rust, so with the information
suggesting they might work, it looks worth a try to me. I could be
convinced otherwise, but not just by apparant popularity.

Only way to know is to fork out some cash, buy and try one, prices seem
to vary from approx $190 up to $600 and that in itself is a problem, are
the expensive units any better than the cheapies?

I won't buy one, I'll make one. Whether they work or not, the price
the commercial ones sell for is a rip off. My idea from the start
has been to work out the signals they use (which I've now
found in the docs for the Canadian devices), then build my own
equivalents, which I'll test on some scratched painted sheet metal
that I'll leave outside for a few months. As I noted in earlier
posts the signals seem to be pretty simple. The only cost might be
for some conductive glue for the anode pads, and a day tinkering
with electronics, which I enjoy anyway.
I won't be that surprised if it doesn't do anything, but since I
haven't seen any tests showing that they don't work, I'd like to
find out for sure.

Worth a try if you have some spare time, just don't hold your breath
expecting much of a result.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Daryl
Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Daryl
The truck is a 1980 International

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

[Daryl]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Daryl
Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
The truck is a 1980 International

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
I won't be that surprised if it doesn't do anything, but since I
haven't seen any tests showing that they don't work, I'd like to
find out for sure.

Worth a try if you have some spare time, just don't hold your breath
expecting much of a result.

Sure, I enjoy electronics tinkering anyway. More fun than arguing
over what consitiutes an experiment/test, but I guess I forgot that
aus.cars is only a place for arguments.

The problem with doing any sort of testing in an automotive environment
is that there are a lot of variables, the steel is not all exactly the
same and the way they its treated also varies, the environment that cars
live in can also vary considerably.
You may have success testing a device on one car but a failure on an
another making it very difficult to be 100% sure whether or not the
device works.
Testing will be a bit like testing those kangaroo whistles that we
fitted to the front of our cars, we didn't hit any kangaroos so did they
work or did we just get lucky.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
but the cab's started

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
showing surface rust lately too.

It is almost 30yrs old so not surprising that there is some rust.

I'm not surprised either. Such are valid use cases for a rust
prevention device _if_ they worked, which was my only point.

Maybe but AFAIK they aren't that good at stopping existing rust from
spreading, if they do work at all its when they are fitted to a new
vehicle which has no rust.

My idea is that I fix any existing rust like I've been doing, then
the device (if I can make one that seems to work in my tests) helps
resist new rust spots appearing in completely different areas.
Hopefully the repaired areas too.

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Worth a try if you have some spare time, just don't hold your breath
expecting much of a result.

Sure, I enjoy electronics tinkering anyway. More fun than arguing
over what consitiutes an experiment/test, but I guess I forgot that
aus.cars is only a place for arguments.

The problem with doing any sort of testing in an automotive environment
is that there are a lot of variables, the steel is not all exactly the
same and the way they its treated also varies, the environment that cars
live in can also vary considerably.
You may have success testing a device on one car but a failure on an
another making it very difficult to be 100% sure whether or not the
device works.

Indeed that's why I intend to test it first away from a car like I
said before in my reply to Ozix. Inspired heavily by the tests the
Canadians did, but without the salt spray. Similar to this, but
without the humidity-controlled chamber so it might take many
months just being left outside (avoiding bird poo might be a
problem):
https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/Smithers.pdf

That'll also allow testing different signals and voltages.

Mind you, I won't be able to use automotive sheet metal and paint
like in their tests. Testing on individual car body panels like
undamaged doors removed from the same old car might be better,
but I don't know where I'd get those cheap locally. The idea is to
scratch them and then watch for rust developing in the scratch.

[Xeno]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
OK well I'm asking for trouble with that one really because it's a
1989 Jaguar XJ40.

Seems to be some debate on whether or not Jags were actually galvanized.
https://www.jaguarforum.com/threads/galvanised-body-fact-or-myth.44736/

OK, it looked galvanised in a wheel arch where some of the
undercoat was chipped off, and there was no rust there even though
the metal was (or at least looked) exposed. Probably just in
certain spots like the forum thread says.

It most likely was galvanised and, I might add, the Jaguar was one of
the forerunners in a process that became common during the 90s. Pretty
much every car this century has been hot dipped galvanized and that
process began in the US and AU around 1995.
The problem with paint as a protective barrier against corrosion is that
it needs 100% coverage. A scratch or stone chip is all that is needed to
provide a start point for rust to begin attacking the base metal
underneath - so you once needed to fix up stone chips and scratches
immediately.
Enter the galvanising process. Cars tend to be hot dipped because it is
the easiest process and the coating is thicker - that's important. The
layer of zinc functions first as a barrier, just like paint, to those
atmospheric components that would like to react with the iron - water
being the perfect example. Secondly the chemical reaction of the zinc
with, say, the water, creates a thin layer best known as a patina. In
this process the water splits into ions and reacts with the zinc thereby
creating the "protective" patina layer. This patina forms a second
barrier to keep the underlying steel free of rust. Thirdly, there is
cathodic protection. In the electrochemical reaction, the cathode
(steel) gets protected whilst the anode (zinc) gets sacrificed. Because
of the hot dipped galvanizing, the paint coat on modern cars is purely
decorative.
That sacrifice is important to note - because it is time constrained.
Car bodies will be protected for some 30 years and, by then, enough of
the zinc will have been sacrificed for rust to begin to take over. At 30
years, most cars would be well and truly past their use by date and well
on their way to being a recycled Chinese car. So, if you have a car
older than 30 years, it might be time to pay more attention to rust
prevention and general maintenance.

This reminds me of a little debacle with a Chinese ute on the Gold Coast
recently;

https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qcat/2021/316

Was the LDV ute hot dipped galvanised? I suspect it wasn't. Or if it
was, it was a piss poor job.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Daryl
The truck is a 1980 International

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
ACCO 610A, where the cab is possibly better than most others still
out there, but that still makes it pretty rusty.

Those trucks were notorious for rust, finding one without significant
rust would be near impossible.

Yes I more or less said that. At least the steel is farly thick so
there's some time to catch it before you get a hole.

Any vehicle from the 70s or 80s was notorious for rust. Note too, most
of these rusted *from the inside* exacerbated by lack of owner attention
to cleaning out mud collection points, unblocking drain holes, and the like.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Xeno

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl

OK well I'm asking for trouble with that onereally because it's a
1989 Jaguar XJ40.

Seems to be some debate on whether or not Jags were actually
galvanized.
https://www.jaguarforum.com/threads/galvanised-body-fact-or-myth.44736/

OK, it looked galvanised in a wheel arch where some of the
undercoat was chipped off, and there was no rust there even though
the metal was (or at least looked) exposed. Probably just in
certain spots like the forum thread says.

It most likely was galvanised and, I might add, the Jaguar was one of
the forerunners in a process that became common during the 90s. Pretty
much every car this century has been hot dipped galvanized and that
process began in the US and AU around 1995.
The problem with paint as a protective barrier against corrosion is that
it needs 100% coverage. A scratch or stone chip is all that is needed to
provide a start point for rust to begin attacking the base metal
underneath - so you once needed to fix up stone chips and scratches
immediately.

I never did and never had a problem with rust.

Post by Xeno
Enter the galvanising process. Cars tend to be hot dipped because it is
the easiest process and the coating is thicker - that's important. The
layer of zinc functions first as a barrier, just like paint, to those
atmospheric components that would like to react with the iron - water
being the perfect example. Secondly the chemical reaction of the zinc
with, say, the water, creates a thin layer best known as a patina. In
this process the water splits into ions and reacts with the zinc thereby
creating the "protective" patina layer.

That mangles the chemistry involved.

Post by Xeno
This patina forms a second barrier to keep the underlying steel free of
rust. Thirdly, there is cathodic protection. In the electrochemical
reaction, the cathode (steel) gets protected whilst the anode (zinc)
gets sacrificed.

Doesnt happen with cars.

Post by Xeno
Because of the hot dipped galvanizing, the paint coaton modern cars is
purely decorative.
That sacrifice is important to note - because it is time constrained.
Car bodies will be protected for some 30 years and, by then, enoughof
the zinc will have been sacrificed for rust to begin to take over.

Utterly mangled all over again.

Post by Xeno
At 30 years, most cars would be well and truly past their use by date

BULLSHIT.

Post by Xeno
and well on their way to being a recycled Chinese car.

Not because of rust.

Post by Xeno
So, if you have a car older than 30 years, it might be time topay more
attention to rust prevention and general maintenance.

Depends on the car.

Post by Xeno
This reminds me of a little debacle with a Chinese ute on the Gold Coast
recently;
https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qcat/2021/316
Was the LDV ute hot dipped galvanised? I suspect it wasn't. Or if it
was, it was a piss poor job.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
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.

Post by Daryl
The truck is a 1980 International

ACCO 610A, where the cab is possibly better than most others still
out there, but that still makes it pretty rusty.

Those trucks were notorious for rust, finding one without significant
rust would be near impossible.

Yes I more or less said that. At least the steel is farly thick so
there's some time to catch it before you get a hole.

Any vehicle from the 70s or 80s was notorious for rust.

BULLSHIT.

Post by Xeno
Note too, most of these rusted *from the inside* exacerbatedby lack of
owner attention to cleaning out mud collectionpoints, unblocking drain
holes, and the like.

Never needed to do that and I used dirt roads extensively.

Post by Xeno

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl

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.

[Noddy]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem?

Nope, though not in the desert either. South-Western Victoria.
Rusty vehicles seem common enough out here, I know a few people
similarly afflicted, one further North with the roof rusting away
on his 80s Land Cruiser.

An "80's Land Cruiser" is a 40 year old vehicle :)

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
Rust on cars hasn't been a significant issue in Australia for many many
years, in general our climate isn't damp enough for it to be an issue
and car rust proofing from the factory is much improved.
I own 2 cars that are more than 20yrs old and no rust on either of them
so whether or not those electronic rust devices work is pretty much
irrelevant to most car owners.

OK, maybe the climate is more dry where you live. A neighbour has
similar rust problems developing on a late 80s truck, which spent
almost all its life in a shed (though not fully enclosed). I'm
pretty sure that at least one vehicle where I've had rust _is_
made of galvanised steel.

Again, anything made in the 1980's is 40 years old, and rust in vehicles
of that age is not uncommon. Some vehicles are quite famous for it.

Secondly, galvanised steel is not a common car body material. At least
not where high levels of zinc are concerned. The main reason for that is
that Zinc and paint don't happily co-exist. Automotive body
manufacturers for the last 50 years at least have been using cold rolled
steel for most of their body pressings, which is subject to an "e-coat"
process that uses small quantities of zinc and other materials to
provide a corrosion protection layer.

It's a form of "galvanising" per se', but it's nothing like the kind of
Zinc based glavanising you commonly see on things like trailers, tools
and bolts.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular
stream of rust buckets.

Do they?

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
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 :)

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it
certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal evidence
then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't almost
standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
indication that they simply don't work as advertised.

Maybe. Frankly I'm fed up with rust, so with the information
suggesting they might work, it looks worth a try to me. I could be
convinced otherwise, but not just by apparant popularity.

Interesting. You have virtually *nothing* to convince you that the
process is either successful *or* popular but because you found a link
to some sketchy testing that suggests that it *might* work you're
willing to forgo tried and tested methods and pursue an "easy" option.

No, of course I'm not willing to forgo tried and tested methods. I'm
willing to do a test on scrap metal because it seems nobody has
published such tests except those ones you call sketchy which say
it works. Either way I'll still keep treating any rust I encounter
conventionally.

Post by Noddy
Good luck with your projects :)

It'll be a fun electronics experiment. One of my more practical
ones overall.

[Noddy]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular
stream of rust buckets.

Do they?

"Corrosion - entire vehicle" is their term for it.

Yeah, it's a generic description for finding rust in more than one place :)

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Noddy
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.

Post by Noddy
Good luck with your projects :)

It'll be a fun electronics experiment. One of my more practical
ones overall.

Yeah, I don't think so, but anyway. It would seem that the lack of any
success stories about this shit tells you nothing.

<shrug>

[Clocky]

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl

Post by Noddy
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.
https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/buying-a-car/features/shonky-rust-reduction-devices-debunked

[quote]
WA Consumer Protection found the theory behind the computerised
electronic corrosion inhibitors (CECI) – that rust is attracted to a
sacrificial piece of metal using positive electrical current – could
only work in practice if the car it was attached to was submerged in water.
As a result, an Enforceable Undertaking under the Australian Consumer
Law has been made on behalf of all ACL regulators.
CECI distributors High Performance Corporation Pty Ltd (HPC) and
MotorOne Group Pty Ltd (MotorOne) have been ordered to stop the sale of
and secure refunds for consumers who bought the devices, which were
falsely claimed to reduce rust and corrosion by as much as 80 percent in
motor vehicles.
[end quote]
Government consumer protection agencies would *not* be ordering these
products off the market and people to be refunded if they worked.
It's that simple....

Note: WA comsumer protection laws habe also prevent unqualified
mechanics like you (aka shonks) from working as 'mechanics' for about 20
years to protect consumers.

Different story in backward Victoria where unqualified and incompetent
shonks are still freely allowed to operate and pretend they are
mechanics - and haven't you made the most of that...

[chop]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl

Post by Noddy
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

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

[Peeler]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 05:48:19 +1100, chop, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

[Bud Frede]

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl

Post by Noddy
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

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

[Xeno]

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl

Post by Noddy
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

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Got technical info on just how they operate - *in detail*?

Post by Bud Frede
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.

Given the *lack of evidence*, I kind of expected your comment to be
unbacked/unpublished. No surprise there, eh?

[Rod Speed]

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl

Post by Noddy
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

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

But did he use metal that was coated anything like
what was used in cars and did he use anything like
the environment seen with salted roads in winter,
and which electronic protection system was used ?

Post by Bud Frede
The devices don't work. They've been aroundfor decades and they've
never worked.

Doesnt explain the Canadian regulatory requirement
to show that a particular device does work.

Post by Bud Frede
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.

More likely because the detail of the 'test' was pathetically inadequate.

[Peeler]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 06:13:03 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
I sure wouldn't pay hundreds

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

[alan_m]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
I sure wouldn't pay hundreds

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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
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
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-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.

[j***@home.org]

Post by alan_m

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
I sure wouldn't pay hundreds

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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
https://www.autosaverobd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ITS-

REPORT-015-05015-4-_3-15-2007_.pdf

Post by alan_m

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
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-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.

[Xeno]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by alan_m

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
I sure wouldn't pay hundreds

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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
https://www.autosaverobd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ITS-

REPORT-015-05015-4-_3-15-2007_.pdf

Post by alan_m

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
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-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? They all seem to have been at
least partially galvanized from the outset in 1989. The Yanks only
caught on to galvanizing in the mid 90s.

[j***@home.org]

Post by Xeno

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by alan_m

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
I sure wouldn't pay hundreds

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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
https://www.autosaverobd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ITS-

REPORT-015-05015-4-_3-15-2007_.pdf

Post by alan_m

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
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-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

body and doors.

[Frank]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by alan_m

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
I sure wouldn't pay hundreds

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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
https://www.autosaverobd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ITS-

REPORT-015-05015-4-_3-15-2007_.pdf

Post by alan_m

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
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-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.

Renault was also doing this galvanizing the whole welded body. Some are
on sided galvanized before welding.

[Rod Speed]

Post by alan_m

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Bud Frede

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
I sure wouldn't pay hundreds

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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
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
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.

Nope, nothing strange about that.

Post by alan_m
My car wasn't fitted with one of these anti-rust wonder products.
Perhaps European car manufactures take a lot morecare with the paint
technology and build quality?

Clearly not true of Jags and the BMC crap.

Post by alan_m
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 necessarilybody
panels but rust destroying chassis parts etc. beneath the car.

[David Wade]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by alan_m
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

Post by Rod Speed

Post by alan_m
My car wasn't fitted with one  of these anti-rust  wonder products.
Perhaps European car manufactures  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.

Post by Rod Speed

Post by alan_m
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
necessarilybody  panels but rust destroying chassis parts etc. beneath
the car.

Dave

[charles]

Post by David Wade

Post by Rod Speed

Post by alan_m
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

Post by Rod Speed

Post by alan_m
My car wasn't fitted with one of these anti-rust wonder products.
Perhaps European car manufactures 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. 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.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by charles

Post by David Wade

Post by Rod Speed

Post by alan_m
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

Post by Rod Speed

Post by alan_m
My car wasn't fitted with one of these anti-rust wonder products.
Perhaps European car manufactures 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. 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.

I certainly wouldn't want my body parts treated in that manner.

[Frank]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by David Wade

Post by Rod Speed

Post by alan_m
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

Post by Rod Speed

Post by alan_m
My car wasn't fitted with one  of these anti-rust  wonder products.
Perhaps European car manufactures  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.  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.

I certainly wouldn't want my body parts treated in that manner.

Car bodies in white are washed before rust proofing to remove any oil
contamination.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by alan_m
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.

Bullahit. Never had one do that.

Replacements are priced so that using themwould cost more than
replacing the car

More bullshit.

Post by Rod Speed

Post by alan_m
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?

Clearly not true of Jags and the BMC crap.

Well BMC hasn't existed for over 50 years,nor has its successor British
Leyland

Irrelevant to the stupid more care claim.

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...

BULLSHIT on that last.

.. modern Jags seem as rust proof as any other car.

More bullshit.

Post by Rod Speed

Post by alan_m
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
necessarilybody panels but rust destroying chassis parts etc. beneath
the car.

[Peeler]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 08:49:46 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

[Peeler]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:38:28 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

[Daryl]

Post by alan_m

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
I sure wouldn't pay hundreds

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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
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
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-rust  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.

[Paul]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
I sure wouldn't pay hundreds

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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
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
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-rust  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.

Because of environmental laws, there is likely to be less variation
in paint types used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_paint

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.

Paul

[Rod Speed]

Post by Paul

Post by Daryl

Post by alan_m

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
I sure wouldn't pay hundreds

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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
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
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-rust 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.

Because of environmental laws, there is likely to be less variation
in paint types used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_paint
Cars are designed for global markets.

Plenty aren't.

Post by Paul
If you are Tata, you don't > design a car and only test it in Mumbai.

Can you buy Tata cars in the first world ?

Never seen any here in Australia.

Post by Paul
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.

I haven't found a problem with that and I used
the Golf for 50 years and used it a lot on gravel
roads too. We don't do road salting here tho.

Post by Paul
You can replace all the suspension components on a car, during it life.

Never had to do that with any of mine.

Post by Paul
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.

Never saw that with the Golf and I never did take it to
the junk yard. a mate who is into old cars has it now.

Post by Paul
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.

Never did that with any of my cars.

Post by Paul
An oil spray starts with a cleaning, followed by the oil.And it's a
selective treatment, as you can't spray iton some things without
damaging them.
And that should be enough. No need for gizmos or snake oil.

[Peeler]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 05:02:12 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

[Noddy]

Post by Paul
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.

Post by Paul
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.

Post by Paul
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.

Post by Paul
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....

Post by Paul
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.

Post by Paul
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.

[Xeno]

Post by Noddy

Post by Paul
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 :)

Still true Darren. Before it is launched a new vehicle is tested
virtually (simulation) and then finally on the road with development
mules. That still happens today. 40 years ago I was at the Holden
Development Labs watching vehicles being tested with CAE (Computer Aided
Engineering). Today that is more sophisticated but vehicles are still
tested on the road.

Post by Noddy
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.

The cars of yore were often stymied by problems that *should have* been
picked up in testing - but weren't. I was working in dealerships in the
late 60s and 70s seeing these failures first hand. The problems we have
in new cars nowadays are nothing like the cockups that occurred in the
70s. A good example was the twisting chassis caused by steering box
applied forces on HJ Holdens. Didn't have that issue on the earlier
models. You never worked *as a mechanic* in a dealership so how do you
know what was going on in the car industry back in the day?

Post by Noddy
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.

Sorry but I have to disabuse you of that idea. The development mules are
used for that purpose - and test areas like Lang Lang. Even the motoring
writers can be seen as beta testers

Post by Noddy

Post by Paul
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.

Nope. Quality of steel is the first point. The second are the coatings
applied. Cars do not rust at anywhere near the rust rates of *last century*.

Post by Noddy
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

Bullshit. Are you claiming to be an *expert* in sheet metal processes
now? A mate here has been in the panel beating game for over 50 years
and he told me there have been heaps of changes in the sheet metal
processes over his time in the trade, all of which create complications
for panel beaters and spray painters and all of which require skills
updating. I seem to recall you have never done a *trade* as a panel
beater or a spray painter nor have you ever worked in that industry so
you would never have done skills updating courses either. All you've
ever done was a *hobby course* in panel beating and spray painting at
Richmond TAFE, a course designed around enabling a hobby car restorer to
work on their own cars.

Anyway, galvanic hot dipping proves that bullshit of yours wrong. It
only became generally used from the mid 90s so a *BIG* change a mere 30
years ago.

Post by Noddy
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.

Post by Paul
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.

They still have a frame Darren, it's just *integral* with the body.

https://www.wccbcharlotte.com/2023/01/30/unibody-vs-body-on-frame/

Can you see the frame elements in there? An *integrated frame* Darren.

Post by Noddy

Post by Paul
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....

You aren't a tradesman so not unexpected.

Post by Noddy

Post by Paul
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.

It's what they are dipped into that makes the greatest difference - ie.
hot galvanic dipping.

I am reminded of the Nissan UrVan bodies that were too tall for a
dipping vat designed for cars. Those dipped vehicles rusted like hell
just above the dip "waterline" which was an inch or three under the rain
gutter. Real quality products, those Nissans! LOL

Post by Noddy

Post by Paul
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.

Aftermarket coatings have to be done *before* the car sees the road. In
any case, such coatings are best applied *during* the manufacturing process.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by alan_m
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.

[Noddy]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Those tests with salt spray are therefore actually less
representative of my conditions than this test which used a
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 :)

Seriously, you have looked until the cows come home and have found
nothing credible, and that should be enough to tell you that these
devices should be lumped into the same category as bracelets that
prevent cancer or Peter Brock's Energy Polariser.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Then again there's a section for rust-stopper paint products in

every car parts store here, many

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
with equally dubious-sounding claims about painting over rust etc.

Read the fine print. There are bullshit claims in every market segment.
It's called "advertising", and it preys on ignorance.

Like it's doing to you.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Snipped groups list restored.

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

The hope is to reduce things like the little bubble of rust I
recently noticed on top of the 1996 Nissan Navara's roof which mean
it's time to add that cab to my patient's list for such rust
repairs. I doubt that's one of the "poor designed and built"
vehicles you mean either.

OK your opinion is that it's not worth testing, got it. I didn't
ask for that opinion anyway, I was only interested in published
tests and DIY projects. So forget about it.

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
Those tests with salt spray are therefore actually less
representative of my conditions than this test which used a
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 :)

The devices were tested on metals that have had the anti-corrosion
treatment and it's suggested in the scientific papers that they
require it.

[Clocky]

Post by Noddy
Seriously, you have looked until the cows come home and have found
nothing credible, and that should be enough to tell you that these
devices should be lumped into the same category as bracelets that
prevent cancer or Peter Brock's Energy Polariser.

Oh, like your claims of qualifications then... since nothing credible
has ever been found to support those either.

[Xeno]

Post by Clocky

Post by Noddy
Seriously, you have looked until the cows come home and have found
nothing credible, and that should be enough to tell you that these
devices should be lumped into the same category as bracelets that
prevent cancer or Peter Brock's Energy Polariser.

Oh, like your claims of qualifications then... since nothing credible
has ever been found to support those either.

Had Darren any credible proof, how many seconds do you reckon it would
take him to post it here? One? Two? But it has been *years* and *still*
no credible evidence has ever been sighted.

At least you could, back in the day, *buy* a *physical* Brock Energy
Polarizer, you could hold it in your hands, you could *test* it for
yourself. Darren's qualifications, on the other hand, are entirely 100%
*mythical*.

[Keithr0]

Post by Clocky

Post by Noddy
Seriously, you have looked until the cows come home and have found
nothing credible, and that should be enough to tell you that these
devices should be lumped into the same category as bracelets that
prevent cancer or Peter Brock's Energy Polariser.

Oh, like your claims of qualifications then... since nothing credible
has ever been found to support those either.

The Tom and Jerry show used to be vaguely amusing, unfortunately all
comedy has a use by date and these days, it's just boring.

[Frank]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by alan_m
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
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.

When the body in white is dipped in the phosphatizing treatment then
ELPO bubbles trapped may prevent treatment. I recall cars in the rust
belt rusting on top of the fenders. They eventually remedied this.

[Clocky]

Post by Frank

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by alan_m
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
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.

When the body in white is dipped in the phosphatizing treatment then
ELPO bubbles trapped may prevent treatment.  I recall cars in the rust
belt rusting on top of the fenders.  They eventually remedied this.

We had a Simca in the Netherlands and the top of the front guards rusted
out so bad that it had gaping holes. But that probably didn't have much
in the way of rust prevention treatment. Everything back then rusted out
in a few short years thanks to the salty snow slurry.

[Clocky]

Post by Frank

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by alan_m
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
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.

When the body in white is dipped in the phosphatizing treatment then
ELPO bubbles trapped may prevent treatment.  I recall cars in the rust
belt rusting on top of the fenders.  They eventually remedied this.

We had a Simca in the Netherlands and the top of the front guards rusted
out so bad that it had gaping holes. But that probably didn't have much
in the way of rust prevention treatment. Everything back then rusted out
in a few short years thanks to the salty snow slurry.

[Bud Frede]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
I sure wouldn't pay hundreds

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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
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
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.

[Daryl]

Post by Bud Frede

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
I sure wouldn't pay hundreds

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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
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
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.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Daryl
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).

[Xeno]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Daryl
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).

One of the subsystems on the Jag isn't dropping into sleep mode.

[Xeno]

Post by Daryl

Post by Bud Frede

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
I sure wouldn't pay hundreds

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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
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
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.

All the *power hungry devices* on modern cars should go into *sleep
mode* when the car is turned off, locked and unattended. In sleep mode,
vehicle subsystems are switched off or to an inactive state to prevent
any parasitic draw on the battery. If the vehicle is inactive for,
typically, 2 weeks and/or the battery falls below 9.5 Volts, the vehicle
shifts into *deep sleep mode*. For some vehicles (Ford), the only way to
exit deep sleep mode is to start the engine with the key, remote start
being disabled. Darren's Ranger will have this facility.

Post by Daryl
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.

All done *automatically* Daryl. The system controlling parasitic draws
has been in cars for, quite literally, *decades*. Please try to keep up.

[alan_m]

Post by Xeno
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.

[Daryl]

Post by alan_m

Post by Xeno
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.

Exactly 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
the car is parked.

[Noddy]

Post by Daryl

Post by alan_m
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.

Exactly 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
the car is parked.

Exactly, and this is yet *another* example of the "teacher" being about
as clueless as you can possibly be.

[Xeno]

Post by Noddy

Post by Daryl

Post by alan_m
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.

Exactly but that's a bit too complicated for Xeno to figure out, a

Not so fast, the current required - *if* it worked - would be minimal.
And it wouldn't be difficult to build in a low current sleep mode anyway.

Post by Noddy

Post by Daryl
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.

Ah Darren, you are the poster boy for cluelessness in this forum!

[Sven]

Post by Noddy

Post by Daryl

Post by alan_m
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.

Exactly 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 the car is parked.

Exactly, and this is yet *another* example of the "teacher" being about
as clueless as you can possibly be.

Give it up Fraudster. Your opinions carry as much weight as Peter
Duttons' head has hair.


alvey

[Xeno]

Post by alan_m

Post by Xeno
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.

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.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

aus.electronics restored.

Post by Xeno

Post by alan_m
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.

As a capacitor, I expect the car body is very 'leaky', so keeping
it charged would require a constant current to offset losses. This
may be why the pulsed signals are preferred by at least the better
documented designs. The first concern by the Canadian regulators
seems to have been whether there was a capacitance effect at all
or simply a dead short, hence a lot of test documention is about
showing that the charge can be measured all over the surface of the
vehicle's paint.

Post by Xeno

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.

I already posted links to papers which describe how at least one
device uses short pulses to charge then discharge the capacitance.
There's more detail in the patent for an earlier device from that
manufacturer:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5407549A/

It uses inductors in order to most efficiently generate
current-limited electrical pulses. For my static experiment I'll
be lazy and just limit the current with resistors in my DIY
equivalent circuit, since for that I can use mains power.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Bud Frede

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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
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
https://www.finalcoat.com/news.html
But details of a test done without any financial motivation for its
success would be very interesting.

I took a quick look at the ITS report pdf. It says the test was done by
immersing the panel in a saline solution.
My friend was able to get some painted panels from an engineer who
worked at Ford and was interested in the test. He then hooked up one of
the devices (he borrowed it from someone who owned one) and sprayed the
panels with a periodic spray of saline solution. I think the full test
ran for 6 months.
The idea behind the spray was that it would more closely approximate
normal usage on a car, and not marine usage, where things like
sacrificial anodes for corrosion protection are common.

That's how the other test in the second link was performed
(described from PDF page 7). However the spray there was continuous
rather than periodic, so your friend's test could have been more
realistic in that regard.

Post by Bud Frede
The painted panels started corroding within a couple of months and were
pretty damaged by the end of the test. A lot of the corrosion started at
the edges where the metal was bare, but there was corrosion that started
in the middle of the panels as well. I figured that the edge corrosion
would be similar to what would happen to a surface with a scratch in the
paint.

I'm not sure about that, and it would depend then on how the panels
were cut.

Post by Bud Frede
He did have some panels in another enclosure that were not connected to
one of the devices. There wasn't much, if any difference between the
sets of panels. They all rusted.
The test was done in the late '80s, so I'd expect that coatings
technology has greatly improved since then, plus I know that at least
some (all?) of the car makers now use galvanized steel for body
parts. There's possibly less need for one of these devices now than
there was.

My interest is in protecting older vehicles, from the 80s and 90s.

Post by Bud Frede
I'm not telling anyone what to buy or not buy, but I know that for
myself I wouldn't spend the money on these gadgets. I'd rather put that
money into washing my car to try to clean the salt off.
I think my friend wound up having more fun building the test rigs than
anything else. Running the tests themselves was about as fun as watching
grass grow. :-)

The awkward part for doing tests myself seems to be cheaply
aquiring car body panels to test it on. I could fall back on just
trying it on cheap galvanised sheet metal and assuming the results
would relate to automotive panels, but much of the documentation
suggests that the glvanising plays an important role in how the
devices work, and looking around at all the galvanised steel
rusting at completely different rates around my property (some
probably on the vehicles that I want to protect) demonstrates that
it varies a lot in quality.

Post by Bud Frede
BTW, I'm not disputing the electrochemistry that's the basis of these
devices. I'm just not convinced that it applies to these devices in the
real world on cars being driven on roads, particularly in areas where
they're exposed to salt.

Salt isn't actually a factor for me in (non-coastal) Australia,
which is why this test in a humidity chamber is more relevent:
https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/Smithers.pdf

However it's unclear why that wasn't sufficient for that company
to fend off the Canadian regulators who required they do that other
test later before allowing sales to resume. Perhaps there was an
issue with the independence of the lab? It looks like the only way
to be sure is to try it myself.

[cshenk]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
I sure wouldn't pay hundreds

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Bud Frede

Post by chop

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Bud Frede
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.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
That's a shame, it would have been interesting to compare his

https://www.autosaverobd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ITS-REPORT-015-05015-4-_3-15-2007_.pdf

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
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
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!

[Rod Speed]

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Noddy
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.

[f***@gallaxial.com]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Noddy
and while electric processes exist to remove rust,
there are none that prevent rust from occurring.

I hadn't looked into removing rust electrically either actually,
but it looks like that'd require dunking your car in a tank of
water. I'll stick to rust converter goos and a Dremmel.

Stick to whatever you like, but there are no electronic rust prevention
processes out there that are anything other than snake oil.

Canada proves that that is a lie.

its Exist device that help to prevent RUST ...

[Noddy]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Noddy
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.

[Clocky]

Post by Noddy

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Noddy

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Noddy
and while electric processes exist to remove rust,
there are none that prevent rust from occurring.

I hadn't looked into removing rust electrically either actually,
but it looks like that'd require dunking your car in a tank of
water. I'll stick to rust converter goos and a Dremmel.

Stick to whatever you like, but there are no electronic rust
prevention processes out there that are anything other than snake oil.

Canada proves that that is a lie.

All Canada has ever proved is that people can survive in minus 40 degree
temperatures, and all you ever continue to prove is that you're a
fucking idiot who will comment regardless of whether you know anything
about what's being discussed or not.

Talking to yourself now?

Post by Noddy
Just do the world a massive favour and shut the fuck up.

Advice you'd do well to follow yourself you incompetent clown.

[Rod Speed]

While looking into rust-proof paints, I stumbled uponthe world of
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,
https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/electronic-rust-protection-for-cars.13859/

What is the detail of the car ? Modern
cars are much better than the old ones.

Then again much of my trouble is from cavities in old vehicle
bodies rusting out from inside*.

Yeah, I did manage to do that myself with my previous 73 VW
Golf. I knew that the windsceen leaked and the car always
lived outside. Eventually that did rust thru the floor that way.

The paint on the outside is OK
until the rust eats right through,

Yep, that's what happened with the Golf.

so would the electric charge preventthat rust starting on the inner
side?

Can't see it myself, particularly with the door frames
where rust usually happens due to blocked water drain
holes in the older fords and holdens and pom cars.

This also says "There are to date no official reports which show
that cars with electronic rust proofing have less corrosion than
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
https://endrust.com.au/product/2-pad-cat-electronic-rust-protection-system/
Input Voltage > 12V/24VDC
Operating Voltage > 9V-32VDC
Output Transformers > Two (2)
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
http://www.septone.com.au/product/l/rustproof-4l

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Rod Speed

While looking into rust-proof paints, I stumbled uponthe world of
https://www.erps.com.au/how-electronic-rust-protection-works/
https://endrust.com.au/products-services/Electronic-Rust-Protection/
https://nilrust.com.au/product-details/electronic-rustproofing/
etc.
Much like with the paints, the question is whether it works, or
whether it's just snake oil.

Rust preventing paint certainly does work.
I built my house in the very early 70s and the entire
structure is RHS, and did the two big gates out of
RHS too. Used killrust paint and nothing has rusted
in what is now more than 50 years.
And my 2006 Hyundai Getz has not rust at all, not
even the decent gouge that some arsehole managed
to do in the woolys car park right in the middle of the
driver's door, with what appears to have been the
corner of a ute flat tray. And I have done nothing to
protect the gouge at all.

Yes I don't disagree at all that a good paint job works wonders,
but once it starts to wear down the ideal solution is to pull the
thing completely to pieces, sand blast it, and paint again. I'm
interested in whether these devices can help put that stage off
a bit longer, because it isn't going to happen.

I'd still keep grinding out and painting over rust spots where
they're found. In places I can't get to I've been spraying fish
oil, though I'm thinking about using these wax sprays for a more
permanent fix. Painting over fish oil has also lasted on the cab
of an 80s truck I tried that on a few years ago. New rust in
different spots has started to appear though, as it does.

Post by Rod Speed

It's supposed to use conductive pads
to create a static charge on the steel vehicle body by using the
paint as a dilectric layer forming a capacitor. The charge prevents
oxidation of the metal.

Can't see that and my formal qualifications are in chemistry.

OK. Some documents suggest it helps the zinc in paint or galvalised
steel to protect the steel more effectively, but there doesn't seem
to be a concrete theory.

Post by Rod Speed

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,
https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/electronic-rust-protection-for-cars.13859/

What is the detail of the car ? Modern
cars are much better than the old ones.

These are 80s and 90s vehicles. All kept under roofs but open to
the elements.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Rod Speed

While looking into rust-proof paints, I stumbled uponthe world of
https://www.erps.com.au/how-electronic-rust-protection-works/
https://endrust.com.au/products-services/Electronic-Rust-Protection/
https://nilrust.com.au/product-details/electronic-rustproofing/
etc.
Much like with the paints, the question is whether it works, or
whether it's just snake oil.

Rust preventing paint certainly does work.
I built my house in the very early 70s and the entire
structure is RHS, and did the two big gates out of
RHS too. Used killrust paint and nothing has rusted
in what is now more than 50 years.
And my 2006 Hyundai Getz has not rust at all, not
even the decent gouge that some arsehole managed
to do in the woolys car park right in the middle of the
driver's door, with what appears to have been the
corner of a ute flat tray. And I have done nothing to
protect the gouge at all.

Yes I don't disagree at all that a good paint job works wonders,
but once it starts to wear down the ideal solution is to pull the
thing completely to pieces, sand blast it, and paint again.

Never had to do anything like that with the Golf
and itsstill fine even now after more than 50 years.

The only problem was my stupidity of not fixing the known windscreen leak.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
I'm interested in whether these devices can help put thatstage off a
bit longer,

Can't see it myself. The explanation of how they
allegedly work just doesnt hold water scientifically.

They may work in Canada with salted winter
roads but we dont have anything like that here.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
because it isn't going to happen.

Mate of mine did that with a very old chev vintage car.
I was amazed because we helped him move what was
quite literally just a pile of rusty metal. It was amazing
what he turned it into, just as good as when it was new.

Massive amount of work tho.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
I'd still keep grinding out and painting over rust spots where
they're found. In places I can't get to I've been spraying fish
oil, though I'm thinking about using these wax sprays for a more
permanent fix. Painting over fish oil has also lasted on the cab
of an 80s truck I tried that on a few years ago. New rust in
different spots has started to appear though, as it does.

Post by Rod Speed

It's supposed to use conductive pads
to create a static charge on the steel vehicle body by using the
paint as a dilectric layer forming a capacitor. The charge prevents
oxidation of the metal.

Can't see that and my formal qualifications are in chemistry.

OK. Some documents suggest it helps the zinc in paint or galvalised
steel to protect the steel more effectively, but there doesn't seem
to be a concrete theory.

That does get used with ships, but that's a completely different
environment with a path for the electrical current.

I live in an irrigation system and the control structures
are all quite literally made of stainless steel now.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Rod Speed

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,
https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/electronic-rust-protection-for-cars.13859/

What is the detail of the car ? Modern
cars are much better than the old ones.

These are 80s and 90s vehicles. All kept under roofs but open to
the elements.

My 73 Golf does fine apart from my stupidity with the windscreen
leak. and it has never lived under a roof and still doesnt. No body
rust at all anywhere except inside in the floor due to the leak.

[Keithr0]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
While looking into rust-proof paints, I stumbled upon the world of
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,
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
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
https://endrust.com.au/product/2-pad-cat-electronic-rust-protection-system/
Input Voltage > 12V/24VDC
Operating Voltage > 9V-32VDC
Output Transformers > Two (2)
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
http://www.septone.com.au/product/l/rustproof-4l

If it worked, every ship owner in the world would be using it.
Sacrificial anodes work under water, but ship's topsides still rust, and
require constant re-painting.

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Post by Keithr0
If it worked, every ship owner in the world would be using it.
Sacrificial anodes work under water, but ship's topsides still rust, and
require constant re-painting.

It might be because on ships, unless the superstructure is
electrically insulated from the hull, any exposed metal (eg. from
chipped paint) on the hull would conduct through the salt water
between the paint and the metal, shorting out the capacitive
charge between them which the device creates.

But that's guesswork. I'm most interested to see documented studies
and tests proving either way.

[Rod Speed]

Post by Computer Nerd Kev

Post by Keithr0
If it worked, every ship owner in the world would be using it.
Sacrificial anodes work under water, but ship'stopsides still rust,
and require constant re-painting.

It might be because on ships, unless the superstructure is
electrically insulated from the hull,

Which they never are.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
any exposed metal (eg. from chipped paint) on the hull

The chipped paint is only on the superstructure.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
would conduct through the salt water

No salt water on forming a conductive path to the superstructure.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
between the paint and the metal,shorting out the capacitive charge
between them which the device creates.

No such animal, and doesnt explain why ships dont have that.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
But that's guesswork.

Fantasy, actually.

Post by Computer Nerd Kev
I'm most interested to see documentedstudies and tests proving either
way.

No such animal