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.

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!
>
> Just go ahead and do your testing Kev. Sounds like you have little else
> to amuse yourself with....

--
Xeno

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

In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> Sounds like Kevvy is one of those dudes who asks for opinions and then
> shoots them all to shit when they don't support his own beliefs.

The question I asked was:

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

I didn't want opinions, I wanted authoritative proof. I did find
some of that in the Canadian tests, saying that the devices do
work, though I _am_ still skeptical. You told me experiments had
been tried and failed, but no references to who/what/when/where.

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

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

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

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

In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
> On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>
> Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem?

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

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

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

Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular
stream of rust buckets.

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

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

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

On 26/2/2024 3:17 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
>> On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>
>> Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem?
>
> Nope, though not in the desert either. South-Western Victoria.
> Rusty vehicles seem common enough out here, I know a few people
> similarly afflicted, one further North with the roof rusting away
> on his 80s Land Cruiser.

It was common on older vehicles and 80's is old for vehicles.
Last vehicle that I owned that had significant rust problems was a 1979
Landcruiser, nothing structural, mostly below the tail lamps and the
bonnet, had the rust fixed properly by a good panel beater and resprayed
and there was no sign of the rust returning when I sold it many years later.
>
>> Rust on cars hasn't been a significant issue in Australia for many many
>> years, in general our climate isn't damp enough for it to be an issue
>> and car rust proofing from the factory is much improved.
>> I own 2 cars that are more than 20yrs old and no rust on either of them
>> so whether or not those electronic rust devices work is pretty much
>> irrelevant to most car owners.
>
> OK, maybe the climate is more dry where you live.

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

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

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

>
> Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular
> stream of rust buckets.

Were they old cars?
>
>> Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it
>> certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
>> not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal evidence
>> then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't almost
>> standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
>> indication that they simply don't work as advertised.
>
> Maybe. Frankly I'm fed up with rust, so with the information
> suggesting they might work, it looks worth a try to me. I could be
> convinced otherwise, but not just by apparant popularity.
>

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

--
Daryl

In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
> On 26/2/2024 3:17 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
>>> On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>
>>> Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem?
>>
>> Nope, though not in the desert either. South-Western Victoria.
>> Rusty vehicles seem common enough out here, I know a few people
>> similarly afflicted, one further North with the roof rusting away
>> on his 80s Land Cruiser.
>
> It was common on older vehicles and 80's is old for vehicles.

Yes the vehicles I have the rust problems with are from the 80s and
90s. If you thought I meant using the device for a new car, then
I can see how it might not be useful.

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

Yes, I live on a gravel road and am aware of that, but the rust
issues are usually with the upper body, not so bad underneath or
in wheel arches. Only the outer layer of dust/clay stays damp where
it builds up underneath, the clay in the soil resists the moisture
penetrating back.

>> I'm pretty sure that at least one vehicle where I've had rust
>> _is_ made of galvanised steel.
>
> What make and model?

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

> Shed floor concrete or dirt/gravel?

Gravel.

>> Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular
>> stream of rust buckets.
>
> Were they old cars?

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

>>> Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it
>>> certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
>>> not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal evidence
>>> then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't almost
>>> standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
>>> indication that they simply don't work as advertised.
>>
>> Maybe. Frankly I'm fed up with rust, so with the information
>> suggesting they might work, it looks worth a try to me. I could be
>> convinced otherwise, but not just by apparant popularity.
>>
>
> Only way to know is to fork out some cash, buy and try one, prices seem
> to vary from approx $190 up to $600 and that in itself is a problem, are
> the expensive units any better than the cheapies?

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

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

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

On 26/02/2024 1:53 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 26/2/2024 12:52 pm, Noddy wrote:

> Sounds like he's trying to treat some older trucks that already have
> rust issues and I don't think that those devices are going to be much
> help on a vehicle that already has significant rust.

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

> 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.
>
>

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 26/02/2024 2:57 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
>> Sounds like Kevvy is one of those dudes who asks for opinions and
>> then shoots them all to shit when they don't support his own
>> beliefs.
>
> The question I asked was:
>
> Anyone know of existing DIY projects or authoritative proof that it
> doesn't (or does!) work?
>
> I didn't want opinions, I wanted authoritative proof.

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

> 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.

> You told me experiments had been tried and failed, but no references
> to who/what/when/where.

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

What I *also* showed you was a link to report from the NRMA which stated
that similar devices had been ordered off the market and the companies
who sold them ordered to refund buyers. I case you missed it the first
time, the article is here:

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

Again,
>
I quote the salient points:

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

and

> NSW Fair Trading Commissioner Rod Stowe has warned NSW consumers not
> to waste their money buying the products.

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

And why do you think that is?

>> 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.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 26/02/2024 3:17 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
>> On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>
>> Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem?
>
> Nope, though not in the desert either. South-Western Victoria.
> Rusty vehicles seem common enough out here, I know a few people
> similarly afflicted, one further North with the roof rusting away
> on his 80s Land Cruiser.

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

>> Rust on cars hasn't been a significant issue in Australia for many many
>> years, in general our climate isn't damp enough for it to be an issue
>> and car rust proofing from the factory is much improved.
>> I own 2 cars that are more than 20yrs old and no rust on either of them
>> so whether or not those electronic rust devices work is pretty much
>> irrelevant to most car owners.
>
> OK, maybe the climate is more dry where you live. A neighbour has
> similar rust problems developing on a late 80s truck, which spent
> almost all its life in a shed (though not fully enclosed). I'm
> pretty sure that at least one vehicle where I've had rust _is_
> made of galvanised steel.

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

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

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

> Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular
> stream of rust buckets.

Do they?

>> Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it
>> certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
>> not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal evidence
>> then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't almost
>> standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
>> indication that they simply don't work as advertised.
>
> Maybe. Frankly I'm fed up with rust, so with the information
> suggesting they might work, it looks worth a try to me. I could be
> convinced otherwise, but not just by apparant popularity.

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

Good luck with your projects :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 26/02/2024 6:49 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:

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

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

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> On 26/02/2024 2:57 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
>> You told me experiments had been tried and failed, but no references
>> to who/what/when/where.
>
> What I told you was that the things don't work. They have been around in
> various form for decades, and various tests over the years have shown
> them to be nothing but snake oil

What tests?

> What I *also* showed you was a link to report from the NRMA which stated
> that similar devices had been ordered off the market and the companies
> who sold them ordered to refund buyers. I case you missed it the first
> time, the article is here:
>
>> https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/buying-a-car/features/shonky-rust-reduction-devices-debunked
>
> Again,
>>
> I quote the salient points:
>
>> Consumer advocates have warned motorists to stay away from
>> electrolysed rust reduction devices after Western Australian
>> authorities proved the products don?t work.
>
> and
>
>> NSW Fair Trading Commissioner Rod Stowe has warned NSW consumers not
>> to waste their money buying the products.

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

>>> Just go ahead and do your testing Kev. Sounds like you have little
>>> else to amuse yourself with....
>>
>> I've always got rust repairs to amuse myself with.
>
> You sound like the kind of person who is looking for a magic fix for an
> age old problem

Sure.

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

In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> On 26/02/2024 3:17 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular
>> stream of rust buckets.
>
> Do they?

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

>>> Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it
>>> certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
>>> not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal evidence
>>> then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't almost
>>> standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
>>> indication that they simply don't work as advertised.
>>
>> Maybe. Frankly I'm fed up with rust, so with the information
>> suggesting they might work, it looks worth a try to me. I could be
>> convinced otherwise, but not just by apparant popularity.
>
> Interesting. You have virtually *nothing* to convince you that the
> process is either successful *or* popular but because you found a link
> to some sketchy testing that suggests that it *might* work you're
> willing to forgo tried and tested methods and pursue an "easy" option.

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

> Good luck with your projects :)

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

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

On 26/2/2024 6:49 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
>> On 26/2/2024 3:17 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
>>>> On 26/2/2024 8:54 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Do you live near the coast where rust might be a problem?
>>>
>>> Nope, though not in the desert either. South-Western Victoria.
>>> Rusty vehicles seem common enough out here, I know a few people
>>> similarly afflicted, one further North with the roof rusting away
>>> on his 80s Land Cruiser.
>>
>> It was common on older vehicles and 80's is old for vehicles.
>
> Yes the vehicles I have the rust problems with are from the 80s and
> 90s. If you thought I meant using the device for a new car, then
> I can see how it might not be useful.
>
>>> OK, maybe the climate is more dry where you live.
>>
>> Doubt that its much dryer approx 55km west of Melb CBD.
>> Do you drive a lot on dirt roads?
>> If so its possible that the dirt/mud gets stuck under the vehicle and
>> stays damp which causes rust, periodically cleaning underneath may be a
>> way of reducing rust problems.
>
> Yes, I live on a gravel road and am aware of that, but the rust
> issues are usually with the upper body, not so bad underneath or
> in wheel arches. Only the outer layer of dust/clay stays damp where
> it builds up underneath, the clay in the soil resists the moisture
> penetrating back.
>
>>> I'm pretty sure that at least one vehicle where I've had rust
>>> _is_ made of galvanised steel.
>>
>> What make and model?
>
> OK well I'm asking for trouble with that one really because it's a
> 1989 Jaguar XJ40.

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

Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the
> once-galvanised tray is most of the trouble,

Once galvanized indicates that much of the gal has been rubbed off?
If so bare steel doesn't have much rust resistance.

but the cab's started
> showing surface rust lately too.

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

The truck is a 1980 International
> ACCO 610A, where the cab is possibly better than most others still
> out there, but that still makes it pretty rusty.

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

>
>> Shed floor concrete or dirt/gravel?
>
> Gravel.

Sounds like that is at least part of the problem.
>
>>> Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular
>>> stream of rust buckets.
>>
>> Were they old cars?
>
> Yep. Except for a 2010s Land Cruiser I saw on their website,
> clearly used regularly on the coast. The chassis was flaking with
> big chunks of rust on that, but it looked like it'd come from a
> gov. dept., probably using it around beaches.

Salt water will destroy even the very best vehicles so that really
doesn't tell us all that much.
I've seen an early 80's Ford Bronco that was less than 2 yrs old almost
totally destroyed by rust mostly in the chassis area, some rust on the
body but not too bad, it was used as a beach tour vehicle and spent
nearly its entire life on a beach, Ford replaced the chassis under warranty.
>>>> Popularity or not is an indication of their effectiveness, whilst it
>>>> certainly isn't a scientific test its a good indication of whether or
>>>> not they work, if they did work and there was lots of anecdotal evidence
>>>> then they would sell a lot more, the fact that they aren't almost
>>>> standard in places that have lots of car rust is a pretty good
>>>> indication that they simply don't work as advertised.
>>>
>>> Maybe. Frankly I'm fed up with rust, so with the information
>>> suggesting they might work, it looks worth a try to me. I could be
>>> convinced otherwise, but not just by apparant popularity.
>>>
>>
>> Only way to know is to fork out some cash, buy and try one, prices seem
>> to vary from approx $190 up to $600 and that in itself is a problem, are
>> the expensive units any better than the cheapies?
>
> I won't buy one, I'll make one. Whether they work or not, the price
> the commercial ones sell for is a rip off. My idea from the start
> has been to work out the signals they use (which I've now
> found in the docs for the Canadian devices), then build my own
> equivalents, which I'll test on some scratched painted sheet metal
> that I'll leave outside for a few months. As I noted in earlier
> posts the signals seem to be pretty simple. The only cost might be
> for some conductive glue for the anode pads, and a day tinkering
> with electronics, which I enjoy anyway.
>
> I won't be that surprised if it doesn't do anything, but since I
> haven't seen any tests showing that they don't work, I'd like to
> find out for sure.
>

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

--
Daryl

On 26/02/2024 8:37 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:

>>> NSW Fair Trading Commissioner Rod Stowe has warned NSW consumers
>>> not to waste their money buying the products.
>
> Says nothing about any testing!

Is English not your first language or something? Read the article.
Again. The very first sentence states:

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

Pay attention to the salient point: "Western Australian authorities
proved the products don't work".

Do you not get this, or do you just think they're making it up?

> The "proof" was just disputing the > theory. I don't call that a
"test". I guess you must use the word
> differently.

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

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 26/02/2024 8:49 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
>> On 26/02/2024 3:17 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

>>> Also I check out the Manheim car auctions and they get a regular
>>> stream of rust buckets.
>>
>> Do they?
>
> "Corrosion - entire vehicle" is their term for it.

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

>> Interesting. You have virtually *nothing* to convince you that the
>> process is either successful *or* popular but because you found a link
>> to some sketchy testing that suggests that it *might* work you're
>> willing to forgo tried and tested methods and pursue an "easy" option.
>
> No, of course I'm not willing to forgo tried and tested methods. I'm
> willing to do a test on scrap metal because it seems nobody has
> published such tests except those ones you call sketchy which say
> it works. Either way I'll still keep treating any rust I encounter
> conventionally.
>
>> Good luck with your projects :)
>
> It'll be a fun electronics experiment. One of my more practical
> ones overall.

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

<shrug>

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Noddy wrote:
> On 26/02/2024 2:57 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
>>> Sounds like Kevvy is one of those dudes who asks for opinions and
>>> then shoots them all to shit when they don't support his own
>>> beliefs.
>>
>> The question I asked was:
>>
>> Anyone know of existing DIY projects or authoritative proof that it
>> doesn't (or does!) work?
>>
>> I didn't want opinions, I wanted authoritative proof.
>
> In other words you searched on Google and didn't find anything, and that
> didn't tell you enough to give up on the idea...

Huge LOL!

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

What a buffoon you are.

alvey

In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> On 26/02/2024 8:37 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
>
>>>> NSW Fair Trading Commissioner Rod Stowe has warned NSW consumers
>>>> not to waste their money buying the products.
>>
>> Says nothing about any testing!
>
> Is English not your first language or something? Read the article.
> Again. The very first sentence states:
>
>> Consumer advocates have warned motorists to stay away from
>> electrolysed rust reduction devices after Western Australian
>> authorities proved the products don't work.
>
> Pay attention to the salient point: "Western Australian authorities
> proved the products don't work".
>
> Do you not get this, or do you just think they're making it up?

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

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

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

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

> > The "proof" was just disputing the theory. I don't call that a
> "test". I guess you must use the word
>> differently.
>
> Proving something doesn't work is a little more than just disputing the
> theory.

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

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

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

In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
> On 26/2/2024 6:49 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>
>> OK well I'm asking for trouble with that one really because it's a
>> 1989 Jaguar XJ40.
>
> Seems to be some debate on whether or not Jags were actually galvanized.
> https://www.jaguarforum.com/threads/galvanised-body-fact-or-myth.44736/

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

> Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the
>> once-galvanised tray is most of the trouble,
>
> Once galvanized indicates that much of the gal has been rubbed off?
> If so bare steel doesn't have much rust resistance.
>
> but the cab's started
>> showing surface rust lately too.
>
> It is almost 30yrs old so not surprising that there is some rust.

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

> The truck is a 1980 International
>> ACCO 610A, where the cab is possibly better than most others still
>> out there, but that still makes it pretty rusty.
>
> Those trucks were notorious for rust, finding one without significant
> rust would be near impossible.

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

>> I won't be that surprised if it doesn't do anything, but since I
>> haven't seen any tests showing that they don't work, I'd like to
>> find out for sure.
>>
>
> Worth a try if you have some spare time, just don't hold your breath
> expecting much of a result.

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

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

On 27/2/2024 8:50 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
>> On 26/2/2024 6:49 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>
>>> OK well I'm asking for trouble with that one really because it's a
>>> 1989 Jaguar XJ40.
>>
>> Seems to be some debate on whether or not Jags were actually galvanized.
>> https://www.jaguarforum.com/threads/galvanised-body-fact-or-myth.44736/
>
> OK, it looked galvanised in a wheel arch where some of the
> undercoat was chipped off, and there was no rust there even though
> the metal was (or at least looked) exposed. Probably just in
> certain spots like the forum thread says.
>
>> Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the
>>> once-galvanised tray is most of the trouble,
>>
>> Once galvanized indicates that much of the gal has been rubbed off?
>> If so bare steel doesn't have much rust resistance.
>>
>> but the cab's started
>>> showing surface rust lately too.
>>
>> It is almost 30yrs old so not surprising that there is some rust.
>
> I'm not surprised either. Such are valid use cases for a rust
> prevention device _if_ they worked, which was my only point.

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

>
>> The truck is a 1980 International
>>> ACCO 610A, where the cab is possibly better than most others still
>>> out there, but that still makes it pretty rusty.
>>
>> Those trucks were notorious for rust, finding one without significant
>> rust would be near impossible.
>
> Yes I more or less said that. At least the steel is farly thick so
> there's some time to catch it before you get a hole.
>
>>> I won't be that surprised if it doesn't do anything, but since I
>>> haven't seen any tests showing that they don't work, I'd like to
>>> find out for sure.
>>>
>>
>> Worth a try if you have some spare time, just don't hold your breath
>> expecting much of a result.
>
> Sure, I enjoy electronics tinkering anyway. More fun than arguing
> over what consitiutes an experiment/test, but I guess I forgot that
> aus.cars is only a place for arguments.
>

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

--
Daryl

In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
> On 27/2/2024 8:50 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
>>> On 26/2/2024 6:49 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> but the cab's started
>>>> showing surface rust lately too.
>>>
>>> It is almost 30yrs old so not surprising that there is some rust.
>>
>> I'm not surprised either. Such are valid use cases for a rust
>> prevention device _if_ they worked, which was my only point.
>
> Maybe but AFAIK they aren't that good at stopping existing rust from
> spreading, if they do work at all its when they are fitted to a new
> vehicle which has no rust.

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

>>> Worth a try if you have some spare time, just don't hold your breath
>>> expecting much of a result.
>>
>> Sure, I enjoy electronics tinkering anyway. More fun than arguing
>> over what consitiutes an experiment/test, but I guess I forgot that
>> aus.cars is only a place for arguments.
>>
>
> The problem with doing any sort of testing in an automotive environment
> is that there are a lot of variables, the steel is not all exactly the
> same and the way they its treated also varies, the environment that cars
> live in can also vary considerably.
> You may have success testing a device on one car but a failure on an
> another making it very difficult to be 100% sure whether or not the
> device works.

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

That'll also allow testing different signals and voltages.

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

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

In aus.electronics Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote:
>
> If it worked, every ship owner in the world would be using it.
> Sacrificial anodes work under water, but ship's topsides still rust, and
> require constant re-painting.

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

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

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

On 27/2/2024 7:51 am, OldIron wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 26/02/2024 2:57 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
>>>> Sounds like Kevvy is one of those dudes who asks for opinions and
>>>> then shoots them all to shit when they don't support his own
>>>> beliefs.
>>>
>>> The question I asked was:
>>>
>>> Anyone know of existing DIY projects or authoritative proof that it
>>> doesn't (or does!) work?
>>>
>>> I didn't want opinions, I wanted authoritative proof.
>>
>> In other words you searched on Google and didn't find anything, and that
>> didn't tell you enough to give up on the idea...
>
> Huge LOL!
>
> So what does not being able to find anything on your fabled business,
> qualifications, property ownership etc etc etc tell everyone Fraudster?

Not even in the trade registration database and that *last resort* of
data storage/archival of apprenticeships and trade qualifications, the
PROV archives. That told me, in no uncertain terms, that Darren was an
*inveterate liar* but, hey, I already knew that! ;-)
>
> What a buffoon you are.
>
I don't think buffoon quite covers Darren's malady.
>
> alvey
>
>

--
Xeno

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

On 26/2/2024 11:26 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 26/02/2024 8:37 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> In aus.electronics Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
>
>>>> NSW Fair Trading Commissioner Rod Stowe has warned NSW consumers
>>>> not to waste their money buying the products.
>>
>> Says nothing about any testing!
>
> Is English not your first language or something? Read the article.
> Again. The very first sentence states:
>
>> Consumer advocates have warned motorists to stay away from
>> electrolysed rust reduction devices after Western Australian
>> authorities proved the products don’t work.
>
> Pay attention to the salient point: "Western Australian authorities
> proved the products don't work".
>
> Do you not get this, or do you just think they're making it up?
>
> > The "proof" was just disputing the > theory. I don't call that a
> "test". I guess you must use the word
>> differently.
>
> Proving something doesn't work is a little more than just disputing the
> theory.

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

--
Xeno

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

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
> Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

>> If it worked, every ship owner in the world would be using it.

>> Sacrificial anodes work under water, but ship'stopsides still rust,
>> and require constant re-painting.

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

Which they never are.

> any exposed metal (eg. from chipped paint) on the hull

The chipped paint is only on the superstructure.

> would conduct through the salt water

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

> between the paint and the metal,shorting out the capacitive charge
> between them which the device creates.

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

> But that's guesswork.

Fantasy, actually.

> I'm most interested to see documentedstudies and tests proving either
> way.

No such animal

On 27/2/2024 8:50 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.electronics Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
>> On 26/2/2024 6:49 pm, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>
>>> OK well I'm asking for trouble with that one really because it's a
>>> 1989 Jaguar XJ40.
>>
>> Seems to be some debate on whether or not Jags were actually galvanized.
>> https://www.jaguarforum.com/threads/galvanised-body-fact-or-myth.44736/
>
> OK, it looked galvanised in a wheel arch where some of the
> undercoat was chipped off, and there was no rust there even though
> the metal was (or at least looked) exposed. Probably just in
> certain spots like the forum thread says.

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

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

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

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

>
>> Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the
>>> once-galvanised tray is most of the trouble,
>>
>> Once galvanized indicates that much of the gal has been rubbed off?
>> If so bare steel doesn't have much rust resistance.
>>
>> but the cab's started
>>> showing surface rust lately too.
>>
>> It is almost 30yrs old so not surprising that there is some rust.

>
> I'm not surprised either. Such are valid use cases for a rust
> prevention device _if_ they worked, which was my only point.
>
>> The truck is a 1980 International
>>> ACCO 610A, where the cab is possibly better than most others still
>>> out there, but that still makes it pretty rusty.
>>
>> Those trucks were notorious for rust, finding one without significant
>> rust would be near impossible.
>
> Yes I more or less said that. At least the steel is farly thick so
> there's some time to catch it before you get a hole.

Any vehicle from the 70s or 80s was notorious for rust. Note too, most
of these rusted *from the inside* exacerbated by lack of owner attention
to cleaning out mud collection points, unblocking drain holes, and the like.
>
>>> I won't be that surprised if it doesn't do anything, but since I
>>> haven't seen any tests showing that they don't work, I'd like to
>>> find out for sure.
>>>
>>
>> Worth a try if you have some spare time, just don't hold your breath
>> expecting much of a result.
>
> Sure, I enjoy electronics tinkering anyway. More fun than arguing
> over what consitiutes an experiment/test, but I guess I forgot that
> aus.cars is only a place for arguments.
>

--
Xeno

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

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
> Computer Nerd Kev wrote
>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote

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

>>> Seems to be some debate on whether or not Jags were actually
>>> galvanized.
>>> https://www.jaguarforum.com/threads/galvanised-body-fact-or-myth.44736/
>> OK, it looked galvanised in a wheel arch where some of the
>> undercoat was chipped off, and there was no rust there even though
>> the metal was (or at least looked) exposed. Probably just in
>> certain spots like the forum thread says.

> It most likely was galvanised and, I might add, the Jaguar was one of
> the forerunners in a process that became common during the 90s. Pretty
> much every car this century has been hot dipped galvanized and that
> process began in the US and AU around 1995.

> The problem with paint as a protective barrier against corrosion is that
> it needs 100% coverage. A scratch or stone chip is all that is needed to
> provide a start point for rust to begin attacking the base metal
> underneath - so you once needed to fix up stone chips and scratches
> immediately.

I never did and never had a problem with rust.

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

That mangles the chemistry involved.

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

Doesnt happen with cars.

> Because of the hot dipped galvanizing, the paint coaton modern cars is
> purely decorative.

> That sacrifice is important to note - because it is time constrained.
> Car bodies will be protected for some 30 years and, by then, enoughof
> the zinc will have been sacrificed for rust to begin to take over.

Utterly mangled all over again.

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

BULLSHIT.

> and well on their way to being a recycled Chinese car.

Not because of rust.

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

Depends on the car.

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

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

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

>>> Then there's a 1996 Nissan Navara ute where the
>>>> once-galvanised tray is most of the trouble,
>>>
>>> Once galvanized indicates that much of the gal has been rubbed off?
>>> If so bare steel doesn't have much rust resistance.
>>>
>>> but the cab's started
>>>> showing surface rust lately too.
>>>
>>> It is almost 30yrs old so not surprising that there is some rust.
>
>
>> I'm not surprised either. Such are valid use cases for a rust
>> prevention device _if_ they worked, which was my only point.
>>
>>> The truck is a 1980 International
>>>> ACCO 610A, where the cab is possibly better than most others still
>>>> out there, but that still makes it pretty rusty.
>>>
>>> Those trucks were notorious for rust, finding one without significant
>>> rust would be near impossible.
>> Yes I more or less said that. At least the steel is farly thick so
>> there's some time to catch it before you get a hole.

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

BULLSHIT.

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

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

>>>> I won't be that surprised if it doesn't do anything, but since I
>>>> haven't seen any tests showing that they don't work, I'd like to
>>>> find out for sure.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Worth a try if you have some spare time, just don't hold your breath
>>> expecting much of a result.
>> Sure, I enjoy electronics tinkering anyway. More fun than arguing
>> over what consitiutes an experiment/test, but I guess I forgot that
>> aus.cars is only a place for arguments.
>>