On 27 Feb 2024 08:05:42 +1000, not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd
Kev) wrote:

>In aus.electronics Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> chop <chop654@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
>>> <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>>> I sure wouldn't pay hundreds
>>>> for one, but if the root of the thing is just applying simple
>>>> electrical signals to the paint surface, it's an easy thing to test
>>>> a DIY equivalent on some bits of scrap. Some of the patents contain
>>>> useful details.
>>>>
>>>> But if there are actual records of people doing such tests and
>>>> showing that it's all lies, which I can see myself (not just hear
>>>> rumor of), then I wouldn't.
>>
>> A friend of mine tested this in the lab when I was in college. The
>> devices don't work. They've been around for decades and they've never
>> worked.
>>
>> He wrote a paper on it for the class he was in, but I don't think it was
>> ever published since it just debunked some junk science and didn't
>> actually represent any new and valuable research in terms of chemistry.
>
>That's a shame, it would have been interesting to compare his
>device and test rig with the successful Canadian lab tests:
>https://www.autosaverobd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ITS-REPORT-015-05015-4-_3-15-2007_.pdf
>https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/CC_Tech.pdf
>
>And "Final Coat" have had their device's experimental results
>published in scientific papers (the same testing that the Canadian
>regulator also accepted):
>https://www.finalcoat.com/news.html
>
>But details of a test done without any financial motivation for its
>success would be very interesting.

Personal experience with one (installed on my sister's Neon when new
- which was then purchaced by my daughter) would strongly suggest it
was useless. Front of hood rotted away plus other significant rust
before the car was 10 years old. She had not transferred the
"warranty" - actually just an insurance policy to cover rust repairs
so didn't manageto collect on the rust damage.

Good friends had the devices installed on their Pontiac car and GMC
truck and had the inspection/validation done annually for as long as
they owned the vehicles - then had them transferred to the
replacements after having had THOUSANDS of dollars of rust repair
covered on each vehicle - and then again on each of the replacements.
You'd almost swear thethings CAUSED rust!!!!
The 88 Chrysler New Yorker I owned at the same time had less rust
after 18 years and over 240,000Km without the device than any of
theirs after 8 or 108 years and all the repairs.

Maybee just the difference between '80s GM and Chrysler cars - I don't
know - BUT the devices shure did NOT prevent rust on any of these 5
samples here in the southwestern Ontario snow belt where on an average
year (this year has been ANYTHING BUT!!!!) we get a lot of snow and
they use LOTS of salt.

My neighbour, a chemical engineering prof looked at the system and
claimed there is no valid scientific basis behind their claims as
implemented on a vehicle. On ships in salt water, and steel re-bars
and girders in bridges there are applications of the principal that DO
WORK but the required conditions do not exist in a vehicular
application

Clare Snyder wrote:

> On 27 Feb 2024 08:05:42 +1000, not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd
> Kev) wrote:
>
> >In aus.electronics Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >> chop <chop654@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
> >>> <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> >>> I sure wouldn't pay hundreds
> >>>> for one, but if the root of the thing is just applying simple
> >>>> electrical signals to the paint surface, it's an easy thing to
> test >>>> a DIY equivalent on some bits of scrap. Some of the patents
> contain >>>> useful details.
> > > > >
> >>>> But if there are actual records of people doing such tests and
> >>>> showing that it's all lies, which I can see myself (not just hear
> >>>> rumor of), then I wouldn't.
> >>
> >> A friend of mine tested this in the lab when I was in college. The
> >> devices don't work. They've been around for decades and they've
> never >> worked.
> >>
> >> He wrote a paper on it for the class he was in, but I don't think
> it was >> ever published since it just debunked some junk science and
> didn't >> actually represent any new and valuable research in terms
> of chemistry.
> >
> > That's a shame, it would have been interesting to compare his
> > device and test rig with the successful Canadian lab tests:
> >
https://www.autosaverobd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ITS-REPORT-015-05015-4-_3-15-2007_.pdf
> > https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/CC_Tech.pdf
> >
> > And "Final Coat" have had their device's experimental results
> > published in scientific papers (the same testing that the Canadian
> > regulator also accepted):
> > https://www.finalcoat.com/news.html
> >
> > But details of a test done without any financial motivation for its
> > success would be very interesting.
>
>
> Personal experience with one (installed on my sister's Neon when new
> - which was then purchaced by my daughter) would strongly suggest it
> was useless. Front of hood rotted away plus other significant rust
> before the car was 10 years old. She had not transferred the
> "warranty" - actually just an insurance policy to cover rust repairs
> so didn't manageto collect on the rust damage.
>
> Good friends had the devices installed on their Pontiac car and GMC
> truck and had the inspection/validation done annually for as long as
> they owned the vehicles - then had them transferred to the
> replacements after having had THOUSANDS of dollars of rust repair
> covered on each vehicle - and then again on each of the replacements.
> You'd almost swear thethings CAUSED rust!!!!
> The 88 Chrysler New Yorker I owned at the same time had less rust
> after 18 years and over 240,000Km without the device than any of
> theirs after 8 or 108 years and all the repairs.
>
> Maybee just the difference between '80s GM and Chrysler cars - I don't
> know - BUT the devices shure did NOT prevent rust on any of these 5
> samples here in the southwestern Ontario snow belt where on an average
> year (this year has been ANYTHING BUT!!!!) we get a lot of snow and
> they use LOTS of salt.
>
> My neighbour, a chemical engineering prof looked at the system and
> claimed there is no valid scientific basis behind their claims as
> implemented on a vehicle. On ships in salt water, and steel re-bars
> and girders in bridges there are applications of the principal that DO
> WORK but the required conditions do not exist in a vehicular
> application

Glad to see a topicable thread! I omitted replying to the others
because of the multi-group posting.

On Navy ships, we mostly chip/sand off the rust then prime and repaint.
The primer and paint is 'special' so it's a lot better at rust
prevention. Nothing work forever though on a metal ship floating in
salt water.

Carol, USN RET.