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

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
> 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
>

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.

In aus.electronics Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> 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

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

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

<snip>

> On that basis I certainly wouldn't buy one at the prices these
> systems are advertised at, but it seems they should be temptingly
> easy to make, and maybe try out in some experiments.

Don't waste your time. It's already been done. They don't work.

The best prevention against rust is to ensure that the metal is
adequately coated with something that forms a durable and effective
moisture barrier, and while electric processes exist to remove rust,
there are none that prevent rust from occurring.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

In aus.electronics Ozix <ozix@xizo.am> wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Anyone know of existing DIY projects or authoritative proof that it
>> doesn't (or does!) work?
>
> I am pretty sure it was denounced as a scam years ago.

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?

> 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.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> On 25/02/2024 2:34 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> On that basis I certainly wouldn't buy one at the prices these
>> systems are advertised at, but it seems they should be temptingly
>> easy to make, and maybe try out in some experiments.
>
> Don't waste your time. It's already been done. They don't work.

The 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?

> 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).

> 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.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

On 25/02/2024 5:31 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

>> and while electric processes exist to remove rust,
>> there are none that prevent rust from occurring.
>
> I hadn't looked into removing rust electrically either actually,
> but it looks like that'd require dunking your car in a tank of
> water. I'll stick to rust converter goos and a Dremmel.

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

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 25/2/2024 8:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 25/02/2024 5:31 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
>>> and while electric processes exist to remove rust,
>>> there are none that prevent rust from occurring.
>>
>> I hadn't looked into removing rust electrically either actually,
>> but it looks like that'd require dunking your car in a tank of
>> water. I'll stick to rust converter goos and a Dremmel.
>
> Stick to whatever you like, but there are no electronic rust prevention
> processes out there that are anything other than snake oil.
>
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.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 25/2/2024 8:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 25/02/2024 5:31 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
>>> and while electric processes exist to remove rust,
>>> there are none that prevent rust from occurring.
>>
>> I hadn't looked into removing rust electrically either actually,
>> but it looks like that'd require dunking your car in a tank of
>> water. I'll stick to rust converter goos and a Dremmel.
>
> Stick to whatever you like, but there are no electronic rust prevention
> processes out there that are anything other than snake oil.
>
>
>
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.

--
Daryl

In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
> On 25/2/2024 8:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> Stick to whatever you like, but there are no electronic rust prevention
>> processes out there that are anything other than snake oil.
>>
> If they did work they would be very popular in places like the UK or Nth
> America where they get snow and ice on the roads treated with salt and
> they don't seem to be popular in those places.

That's exactly the sort of non-evidence that makes me want to test
it out myself. On the one hand there are tests accepted by the
Canadian regulators as proof of effectiveness, and on the other
hand "they don't seem to be popular". I sure wouldn't pay hundreds
for one, but if the root of the thing is just applying simple
electrical signals to the paint surface, it's an easy thing to test
a DIY equivalent on some bits of scrap. Some of the patents contain
useful details.

But if there are actual records of people doing such tests and
showing that it's all lies, which I can see myself (not just hear
rumor of), then I wouldn't.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

On 25/02/2024 11:36 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
>> On 25/2/2024 8:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> Stick to whatever you like, but there are no electronic rust prevention
>>> processes out there that are anything other than snake oil.
>>>
>> If they did work they would be very popular in places like the UK or Nth
>> America where they get snow and ice on the roads treated with salt and
>> they don't seem to be popular in those places.
>
> That's exactly the sort of non-evidence that makes me want to test
> it out myself. On the one hand there are tests accepted by the
> Canadian regulators as proof of effectiveness, and on the other
> hand "they don't seem to be popular". I sure wouldn't pay hundreds
> for one, but if the root of the thing is just applying simple
> electrical signals to the paint surface, it's an easy thing to test
> a DIY equivalent on some bits of scrap. Some of the patents contain
> useful details.
>
> But if there are actual records of people doing such tests and
> showing that it's all lies, which I can see myself (not just hear
> rumor of), then I wouldn't.

Here:

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

[quote]

WA Consumer Protection found the theory behind the computerised
electronic corrosion inhibitors (CECI) – that rust is attracted to a
sacrificial piece of metal using positive electrical current – could
only work in practice if the car it was attached to was submerged in water.

As a result, an Enforceable Undertaking under the Australian Consumer
Law has been made on behalf of all ACL regulators.

CECI distributors High Performance Corporation Pty Ltd (HPC) and
MotorOne Group Pty Ltd (MotorOne) have been ordered to stop the sale of
and secure refunds for consumers who bought the devices, which were
falsely claimed to reduce rust and corrosion by as much as 80 percent in
motor vehicles.

[end quote]

Government consumer protection agencies would *not* be ordering these
products off the market and people to be refunded if they worked.

It's that simple....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote
> Computer Nerd Kev wrote
>> Noddy <me@home.com> wrote

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

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

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

Canada proves that that is a lie.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 05:29:18 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Noddy <me@home.com> wrote
>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote
>>> Noddy <me@home.com> wrote
>
>>>> and while electric processes exist to remove rust,
>>>> there are none that prevent rust from occurring.
>
>>> I hadn't looked into removing rust electrically either actually,
>>> but it looks like that'd require dunking your car in a tank of
>>> water. I'll stick to rust converter goos and a Dremmel.
>
>> Stick to whatever you like, but there are no electronic rust prevention
>> processes out there that are anything other than snake oil.
>
>Canada proves that that is a lie.

its Exist device that help to prevent RUST ...

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote

> While looking into rust-proof paints, I stumbled uponthe world of
> electronic rust prevention gadgets:
> https://www.erps.com.au/how-electronic-rust-protection-works/
> https://endrust.com.au/products-services/Electronic-Rust-Protection/
> https://nilrust.com.au/product-details/electronic-rustproofing/
> etc.

> Much like with the paints, the question is whether it works, or
> whether it's just snake oil.

Rust preventing paint certainly does work.

I built my house in the very early 70s and the entire
structure is RHS, and did the two big gates out of
RHS too. Used killrust paint and nothing has rusted
in what is now more than 50 years.

And my 2006 Hyundai Getz has not rust at all, not
even the decent gouge that some arsehole managed
to do in the woolys car park right in the middle of the
driver's door, with what appears to have been the
corner of a ute flat tray. And I have done nothing to
protect the gouge at all.

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

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

> In this discussion it's mentioned that by relying on the paint to
> form the dilectric, it won't work in areas where the paint is weak,
> which is where rust would start anyway:
> https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/electronic-rust-protection-for-cars.13859/

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

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

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

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

Yep, that's what happened with the Golf.

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

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

> This also says "There are to date no official reports which show
> that cars with electronic rust proofing have less corrosion than
> they would without the device":
> https://www.autotrainingcentre.com/blog/truth-electronic-rust-protection/

> On that basis I certainly wouldn't buy one at the prices these
> systems are advertised at, but it seems they should be temptingly
> easy to make, and maybe try out in some experiments.

> I can't find any DIY designs online, but the specifications on this
> page suggests that the electronics just make a 50V peak-to-peak AC
> voltage at 12.5KHz which is applied to the adheasive contact pads
> (copper tape?):
> https://endrust.com.au/product/2-pad-cat-electronic-rust-protection-system/
> Input Voltage > 12V/24VDC
> Operating Voltage > 9V-32VDC
> Output Transformers > Two (2)
> Output Power (to each Pad) > 50Vpk-pk @ 12.5kHz
> Ground > Negative
> Current Draw > 25ma +/-

> If that's all there is to it, then it shouldn't be hard to build my
> own equivalent.

> Anyone know of existing DIY projects or authoritative proof that it
> doesn't (or does!) work?

> * Waxy cavity coatings like this were actually what I was
> investigating when I stumbled onto these gizmos:
> http://www.septone.com.au/product/l/rustproof-4l

On 26/02/2024 5:29 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Noddy <me@home.com> wrote
>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote
>>> Noddy <me@home.com> wrote
>
>>>> and while electric processes exist to remove rust,
>>>> there are none that prevent rust from occurring.
>
>>> I hadn't looked into removing rust electrically either actually,
>>> but it looks like that'd require dunking your car in a tank of
>>> water. I'll stick to rust converter goos and a Dremmel.
>
>> Stick to whatever you like, but there are no electronic rust
>> prevention processes out there that are anything other than snake oil.
>
> Canada proves that that is a lie.

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

Just do the world a massive favour and shut the fuck up.
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> On 25/02/2024 11:36 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> But if there are actual records of people doing such tests and
>> showing that it's all lies, which I can see myself (not just hear
>> rumor of), then I wouldn't.
>
> Here:
>
>> https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/buying-a-car/features/shonky-rust-reduction-devices-debunked
>
> [quote]
>
> WA Consumer Protection found the theory behind the computerised
> electronic corrosion inhibitors (CECI) - that rust is attracted to a
> sacrificial piece of metal using positive electrical current - could
> only work in practice if the car it was attached to was submerged in water.

Thanks, however that's the same thing the Canadian regulator
claimed, as reported on the Wikipedia page. Then the Canadians
backed down when two of the manufacturers there had tests done
by recognised labs showing that their particular devices did
reduce rust.

It could be that the Aussie devices are/were doing it wrong, or
those tests didn't represent read-world conditions, but I'd like
to see actual tests disproving the Canadian claims seeing
as their authorities had to back down on the "broken theory"
argument. For now I'm focusing on those as the devices
to try and replicate based on patents and the test reports.

The thing that makes me most suspicious is that they're charging
$300-$1000+ for these systems which so far as I can see would cost
a tenth of that or less to make. That sort of profiteering suggests
some dodgyness. But then again the same's probably true of many
paints and anti-rust "treatments".

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

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

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

On 25/02/2024 8:50 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 25/02/2024 11:36 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
>>> On 25/2/2024 8:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> Stick to whatever you like, but there are no electronic rust prevention
>>>> processes out there that are anything other than snake oil.
>>>>
>>> If they did work they would be very popular in places like the UK or Nth
>>> America where they get snow and ice on the roads treated with salt and
>>> they don't seem to be popular in those places.
>>
>> That's exactly the sort of non-evidence that makes me want to test
>> it out myself. On the one hand there are tests accepted by the
>> Canadian regulators as proof of effectiveness, and on the other
>> hand "they don't seem to be popular". I sure wouldn't pay hundreds
>> for one, but if the root of the thing is just applying simple
>> electrical signals to the paint surface, it's an easy thing to test
>> a DIY equivalent on some bits of scrap. Some of the patents contain
>> useful details.
>>
>> But if there are actual records of people doing such tests and
>> showing that it's all lies, which I can see myself (not just hear
>> rumor of), then I wouldn't.
>
> Here:
>
>> https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/buying-a-car/features/shonky-rust-reduction-devices-debunked
>>
>
> [quote]
>
> WA Consumer Protection found the theory behind the computerised
> electronic corrosion inhibitors (CECI) – that rust is attracted to a
> sacrificial piece of metal using positive electrical current – could
> only work in practice if the car it was attached to was submerged in water.
>
> As a result, an Enforceable Undertaking under the Australian Consumer
> Law has been made on behalf of all ACL regulators.
>
> CECI distributors High Performance Corporation Pty Ltd (HPC) and
> MotorOne Group Pty Ltd (MotorOne) have been ordered to stop the sale of
> and secure refunds for consumers who bought the devices, which were
> falsely claimed to reduce rust and corrosion by as much as 80 percent in
> motor vehicles.
>
>
> [end quote]
>
> Government consumer protection agencies would *not* be ordering these
> products off the market and people to be refunded if they worked.
>
> It's that simple....
>

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

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

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 26/02/2024 4:33 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 26/02/2024 5:29 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Noddy <me@home.com> wrote
>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote
>>>> Noddy <me@home.com> wrote
>>
>>>>> and while electric processes exist to remove rust,
>>>>> there are none that prevent rust from occurring.
>>
>>>> I hadn't looked into removing rust electrically either actually,
>>>> but it looks like that'd require dunking your car in a tank of
>>>> water. I'll stick to rust converter goos and a Dremmel.
>>
>>> Stick to whatever you like, but there are no electronic rust
>>> prevention processes out there that are anything other than snake oil.
>>
>> Canada proves that that is a lie.
>
> All Canada has ever proved is that people can survive in minus 40 degree
> temperatures, and all you ever continue to prove is that you're a
> fucking idiot who will comment regardless of whether you know anything
> about what's being discussed or not.
>

Talking to yourself now?

> Just do the world a massive favour and shut the fuck up.

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

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

In aus.electronics Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
>
>> While looking into rust-proof paints, I stumbled uponthe world of
>> electronic rust prevention gadgets:
>> https://www.erps.com.au/how-electronic-rust-protection-works/
>> https://endrust.com.au/products-services/Electronic-Rust-Protection/
>> https://nilrust.com.au/product-details/electronic-rustproofing/
>> etc.
>
>> Much like with the paints, the question is whether it works, or
>> whether it's just snake oil.
>
> Rust preventing paint certainly does work.
>
> I built my house in the very early 70s and the entire
> structure is RHS, and did the two big gates out of
> RHS too. Used killrust paint and nothing has rusted
> in what is now more than 50 years.
>
> And my 2006 Hyundai Getz has not rust at all, not
> even the decent gouge that some arsehole managed
> to do in the woolys car park right in the middle of the
> driver's door, with what appears to have been the
> corner of a ute flat tray. And I have done nothing to
> protect the gouge at all.

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

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

>> It's supposed to use conductive pads
>> to create a static charge on the steel vehicle body by using the
>> paint as a dilectric layer forming a capacitor. The charge prevents
>> oxidation of the metal.
>
> Can't see that and my formal qualifications are in chemistry.

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

>> In this discussion it's mentioned that by relying on the paint to
>> form the dilectric, it won't work in areas where the paint is weak,
>> which is where rust would start anyway:
>> https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/electronic-rust-protection-for-cars.13859/
>
> What is the detail of the car ? Modern
> cars are much better than the old ones.

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

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote

>>> While looking into rust-proof paints, I stumbled uponthe world of
>>> electronic rust prevention gadgets:
>>> https://www.erps.com.au/how-electronic-rust-protection-works/
>>> https://endrust.com.au/products-services/Electronic-Rust-Protection/
>>> https://nilrust.com.au/product-details/electronic-rustproofing/
>>> etc.
>>
>>> Much like with the paints, the question is whether it works, or
>>> whether it's just snake oil.
>>
>> Rust preventing paint certainly does work.
>>
>> I built my house in the very early 70s and the entire
>> structure is RHS, and did the two big gates out of
>> RHS too. Used killrust paint and nothing has rusted
>> in what is now more than 50 years.
>>
>> And my 2006 Hyundai Getz has not rust at all, not
>> even the decent gouge that some arsehole managed
>> to do in the woolys car park right in the middle of the
>> driver's door, with what appears to have been the
>> corner of a ute flat tray. And I have done nothing to
>> protect the gouge at all.
>
> Yes I don't disagree at all that a good paint job works wonders,
> but once it starts to wear down the ideal solution is to pull the
> thing completely to pieces, sand blast it, and paint again.

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

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

> I'm interested in whether these devices can help put thatstage off a
> bit longer,

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

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

> because it isn't going to happen.

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

Massive amount of work tho.

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>> In this discussion it's mentioned that by relying on the paint to
>>> form the dilectric, it won't work in areas where the paint is weak,
>>> which is where rust would start anyway:
>>> https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/electronic-rust-protection-for-cars.13859/
>>
>> What is the detail of the car ? Modern
>> cars are much better than the old ones.
>
> These are 80s and 90s vehicles. All kept under roofs but open to
> the elements.

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

On 25/02/2024 1:34 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> While looking into rust-proof paints, I stumbled upon the world of
> electronic rust prevention gadgets:
> https://www.erps.com.au/how-electronic-rust-protection-works/
> https://endrust.com.au/products-services/Electronic-Rust-Protection/
> https://nilrust.com.au/product-details/electronic-rustproofing/
> etc.
>
> Much like with the paints, the question is whether it works, or
> whether it's just snake oil. It's supposed to use conductive pads
> to create a static charge on the steel vehicle body by using the
> paint as a dilectric layer forming a capacitor. The charge prevents
> oxidation of the metal.
>
> In this discussion it's mentioned that by relying on the paint to
> form the dilectric, it won't work in areas where the paint is weak,
> which is where rust would start anyway:
> https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/electronic-rust-protection-for-cars.13859/
>
> Then again much of my trouble is from cavities in old vehicle
> bodies rusting out from inside*. The paint on the outside is OK
> until the rust eats right through, so would the electric charge
> prevent that rust starting on the inner side?
>
> This also says "There are to date no official reports which show
> that cars with electronic rust proofing have less corrosion than
> they would without the device":
> https://www.autotrainingcentre.com/blog/truth-electronic-rust-protection/
>
> On that basis I certainly wouldn't buy one at the prices these
> systems are advertised at, but it seems they should be temptingly
> easy to make, and maybe try out in some experiments.
>
> I can't find any DIY designs online, but the specifications on this
> page suggests that the electronics just make a 50V peak-to-peak AC
> voltage at 12.5KHz which is applied to the adheasive contact pads
> (copper tape?):
> https://endrust.com.au/product/2-pad-cat-electronic-rust-protection-system/
> Input Voltage > 12V/24VDC
> Operating Voltage > 9V-32VDC
> Output Transformers > Two (2)
> Output Power (to each Pad) > 50Vpk-pk @ 12.5kHz
> Ground > Negative
> Current Draw > 25ma +/-
>
> If that's all there is to it, then it shouldn't be hard to build my
> own equivalent.
>
> Anyone know of existing DIY projects or authoritative proof that it
> doesn't (or does!) work?
>
> * Waxy cavity coatings like this were actually what I was
> investigating when I stumbled onto these gizmos:
> http://www.septone.com.au/product/l/rustproof-4l
>

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

On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
>> On 25/02/2024 11:36 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> But if there are actual records of people doing such tests and
>>> showing that it's all lies, which I can see myself (not just hear
>>> rumor of), then I wouldn't.
>>
>> Here:
>>
>>> https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/buying-a-car/features/shonky-rust-reduction-devices-debunked
>>
>> [quote]
>>
>> WA Consumer Protection found the theory behind the computerised
>> electronic corrosion inhibitors (CECI) - that rust is attracted to a
>> sacrificial piece of metal using positive electrical current - could
>> only work in practice if the car it was attached to was submerged in water.
>
> Thanks, however that's the same thing the Canadian regulator
> claimed, as reported on the Wikipedia page. Then the Canadians
> backed down when two of the manufacturers there had tests done
> by recognised labs showing that their particular devices did
> reduce rust.
>
> It could be that the Aussie devices are/were doing it wrong, or
> those tests didn't represent read-world conditions, but I'd like
> to see actual tests disproving the Canadian claims seeing
> as their authorities had to back down on the "broken theory"
> argument. For now I'm focusing on those as the devices
> to try and replicate based on patents and the test reports.
>
> The thing that makes me most suspicious is that they're charging
> $300-$1000+ for these systems which so far as I can see would cost
> a tenth of that or less to make. That sort of profiteering suggests
> some dodgyness. But then again the same's probably true of many
> paints and anti-rust "treatments".
>
>> Government consumer protection agencies would *not* be ordering these
>> products off the market and people to be refunded if they worked.
>>
>> It's that simple....
>
> Ah yeah, but the Canadians are *not* doing that anymore,
> therefore...
>
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.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
>> On 25/02/2024 11:36 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> But if there are actual records of people doing such tests and
>>> showing that it's all lies, which I can see myself (not just hear
>>> rumor of), then I wouldn't.
>>
>> Here:
>>
>>> https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/buying-a-car/features/shonky-rust-reduction-devices-debunked
>>
>> [quote]
>>
>> WA Consumer Protection found the theory behind the computerised
>> electronic corrosion inhibitors (CECI) - that rust is attracted to a
>> sacrificial piece of metal using positive electrical current - could
>> only work in practice if the car it was attached to was submerged in water.
>
> Thanks, however that's the same thing the Canadian regulator
> claimed, as reported on the Wikipedia page. Then the Canadians
> backed down when two of the manufacturers there had tests done
> by recognised labs showing that their particular devices did
> reduce rust.
>
> It could be that the Aussie devices are/were doing it wrong, or
> those tests didn't represent read-world conditions, but I'd like
> to see actual tests disproving the Canadian claims seeing
> as their authorities had to back down on the "broken theory"
> argument. For now I'm focusing on those as the devices
> to try and replicate based on patents and the test reports.
>
> The thing that makes me most suspicious is that they're charging
> $300-$1000+ for these systems which so far as I can see would cost
> a tenth of that or less to make. That sort of profiteering suggests
> some dodgyness. But then again the same's probably true of many
> paints and anti-rust "treatments".
>
>> Government consumer protection agencies would *not* be ordering these
>> products off the market and people to be refunded if they worked.
>>
>> It's that simple....
>
> Ah yeah, but the Canadians are *not* doing that anymore,
> therefore...
>
Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem?
Rust on cars hasn't been a significant issue in Australia for many many
years, in general our climate isn't damp enough for it to be an issue
and car rust proofing from the factory is much improved.
I own 2 cars that are more than 20yrs old and no rust on either of them
so whether or not those electronic rust devices work is pretty much
irrelevant to most car owners.
Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it
certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal evidence
then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't almost
standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
indication that they simply don't work as advertised.

--
Daryl

On 26/02/2024 12:38 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
>> Ah yeah, but the Canadians are *not* doing that anymore,
>> 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....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 26/2/2024 12:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 26/02/2024 12:38 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>
>>> Ah yeah, but the Canadians are *not* doing that anymore,
>>> 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.

>
> 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.

--
Daryl