On 6 Mar 2024 08:13:02 +1000, not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd
Kev) wrote:

>In aus.electronics Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
>>> In aus.electronics Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>> chop <chop654@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
>>>>> <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> I sure wouldn't pay hundreds
>>>>>> for one, but if the root of the thing is just applying simple
>>>>>> electrical signals to the paint surface, it's an easy thing to test
>>>>>> a DIY equivalent on some bits of scrap. Some of the patents contain
>>>>>> useful details.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if there are actual records of people doing such tests and
>>>>>> showing that it's all lies, which I can see myself (not just hear
>>>>>> rumor of), then I wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>> A friend of mine tested this in the lab when I was in college. The
>>>> devices don't work. They've been around for decades and they've never
>>>> worked.
>>>>
>>>> He wrote a paper on it for the class he was in, but I don't think it was
>>>> ever published since it just debunked some junk science and didn't
>>>> actually represent any new and valuable research in terms of chemistry.
>>>
>>> That's a shame, it would have been interesting to compare his
>>> device and test rig with the successful Canadian lab tests:
>>> https://www.autosaverobd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ITS-REPORT-015-05015-4-_3-15-2007_.pdf
>>> https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/CC_Tech.pdf
>>>
>>> And "Final Coat" have had their device's experimental results
>>> published in scientific papers (the same testing that the Canadian
>>> regulator also accepted):
>>> https://www.finalcoat.com/news.html
>>>
>>> But details of a test done without any financial motivation for its
>>> success would be very interesting.
>>
>> I took a quick look at the ITS report pdf. It says the test was done by
>> immersing the panel in a saline solution.
>>
>> My friend was able to get some painted panels from an engineer who
>> worked at Ford and was interested in the test. He then hooked up one of
>> the devices (he borrowed it from someone who owned one) and sprayed the
>> panels with a periodic spray of saline solution. I think the full test
>> ran for 6 months.
>>
>> The idea behind the spray was that it would more closely approximate
>> normal usage on a car, and not marine usage, where things like
>> sacrificial anodes for corrosion protection are common.
>
>That's how the other test in the second link was performed
>(described from PDF page 7). However the spray there was continuous
>rather than periodic, so your friend's test could have been more
>realistic in that regard.
>
>> The painted panels started corroding within a couple of months and were
>> pretty damaged by the end of the test. A lot of the corrosion started at
>> the edges where the metal was bare, but there was corrosion that started
>> in the middle of the panels as well. I figured that the edge corrosion
>> would be similar to what would happen to a surface with a scratch in the
>> paint.
>
>I'm not sure about that, and it would depend then on how the panels
>were cut.
>
>> He did have some panels in another enclosure that were not connected to
>> one of the devices. There wasn't much, if any difference between the
>> sets of panels. They all rusted.
>>
>> The test was done in the late '80s, so I'd expect that coatings
>> technology has greatly improved since then, plus I know that at least
>> some (all?) of the car makers now use galvanized steel for body
>> parts. There's possibly less need for one of these devices now than
>> there was.
>
>My interest is in protecting older vehicles, from the 80s and 90s.
>
>> I'm not telling anyone what to buy or not buy, but I know that for
>> myself I wouldn't spend the money on these gadgets. I'd rather put that
>> money into washing my car to try to clean the salt off.
>>
>> I think my friend wound up having more fun building the test rigs than
>> anything else. Running the tests themselves was about as fun as watching
>> grass grow. :-)
>
>The awkward part for doing tests myself seems to be cheaply
>aquiring car body panels to test it on. I could fall back on just
>trying it on cheap galvanised sheet metal and assuming the results
>would relate to automotive panels, but much of the documentation
>suggests that the glvanising plays an important role in how the
>devices work, and looking around at all the galvanised steel
>rusting at completely different rates around my property (some
>probably on the vehicles that I want to protect) demonstrates that
>it varies a lot in quality.
>
>> BTW, I'm not disputing the electrochemistry that's the basis of these
>> devices. I'm just not convinced that it applies to these devices in the
>> real world on cars being driven on roads, particularly in areas where
>> they're exposed to salt.
>
>Salt isn't actually a factor for me in (non-coastal) Australia,
>which is why this test in a humidity chamber is more relevent:
>https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/Smithers.pdf
>
>However it's unclear why that wasn't sufficient for that company
>to fend off the Canadian regulators who required they do that other
>test later before allowing sales to resume. Perhaps there was an
>issue with the independence of the lab? It looks like the only way
>to be sure is to try it myself.
For cheep test parts go to your local panel beater and ask for
damaged take-off panels.
But trust me, the crap does NOT WORK on cars. The principal works on
boats - but I think the implementation is different

On 3/5/2024 7:55 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2024 08:13:02 +1000, not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd
> Kev) wrote:
>
>> In aus.electronics Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
>>>> In aus.electronics Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>> chop <chop654@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 23:36:42 +1100, Computer Nerd Kev
>>>>>> <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> I sure wouldn't pay hundreds
>>>>>>> for one, but if the root of the thing is just applying simple
>>>>>>> electrical signals to the paint surface, it's an easy thing to test
>>>>>>> a DIY equivalent on some bits of scrap. Some of the patents contain
>>>>>>> useful details.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if there are actual records of people doing such tests and
>>>>>>> showing that it's all lies, which I can see myself (not just hear
>>>>>>> rumor of), then I wouldn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> A friend of mine tested this in the lab when I was in college. The
>>>>> devices don't work. They've been around for decades and they've never
>>>>> worked.
>>>>>
>>>>> He wrote a paper on it for the class he was in, but I don't think it was
>>>>> ever published since it just debunked some junk science and didn't
>>>>> actually represent any new and valuable research in terms of chemistry.
>>>>
>>>> That's a shame, it would have been interesting to compare his
>>>> device and test rig with the successful Canadian lab tests:
>>>> https://www.autosaverobd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ITS-REPORT-015-05015-4-_3-15-2007_.pdf
>>>> https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/CC_Tech.pdf
>>>>
>>>> And "Final Coat" have had their device's experimental results
>>>> published in scientific papers (the same testing that the Canadian
>>>> regulator also accepted):
>>>> https://www.finalcoat.com/news.html
>>>>
>>>> But details of a test done without any financial motivation for its
>>>> success would be very interesting.
>>>
>>> I took a quick look at the ITS report pdf. It says the test was done by
>>> immersing the panel in a saline solution.
>>>
>>> My friend was able to get some painted panels from an engineer who
>>> worked at Ford and was interested in the test. He then hooked up one of
>>> the devices (he borrowed it from someone who owned one) and sprayed the
>>> panels with a periodic spray of saline solution. I think the full test
>>> ran for 6 months.
>>>
>>> The idea behind the spray was that it would more closely approximate
>>> normal usage on a car, and not marine usage, where things like
>>> sacrificial anodes for corrosion protection are common.
>>
>> That's how the other test in the second link was performed
>> (described from PDF page 7). However the spray there was continuous
>> rather than periodic, so your friend's test could have been more
>> realistic in that regard.
>>
>>> The painted panels started corroding within a couple of months and were
>>> pretty damaged by the end of the test. A lot of the corrosion started at
>>> the edges where the metal was bare, but there was corrosion that started
>>> in the middle of the panels as well. I figured that the edge corrosion
>>> would be similar to what would happen to a surface with a scratch in the
>>> paint.
>>
>> I'm not sure about that, and it would depend then on how the panels
>> were cut.
>>
>>> He did have some panels in another enclosure that were not connected to
>>> one of the devices. There wasn't much, if any difference between the
>>> sets of panels. They all rusted.
>>>
>>> The test was done in the late '80s, so I'd expect that coatings
>>> technology has greatly improved since then, plus I know that at least
>>> some (all?) of the car makers now use galvanized steel for body
>>> parts. There's possibly less need for one of these devices now than
>>> there was.
>>
>> My interest is in protecting older vehicles, from the 80s and 90s.
>>
>>> I'm not telling anyone what to buy or not buy, but I know that for
>>> myself I wouldn't spend the money on these gadgets. I'd rather put that
>>> money into washing my car to try to clean the salt off.
>>>
>>> I think my friend wound up having more fun building the test rigs than
>>> anything else. Running the tests themselves was about as fun as watching
>>> grass grow. :-)
>>
>> The awkward part for doing tests myself seems to be cheaply
>> aquiring car body panels to test it on. I could fall back on just
>> trying it on cheap galvanised sheet metal and assuming the results
>> would relate to automotive panels, but much of the documentation
>> suggests that the glvanising plays an important role in how the
>> devices work, and looking around at all the galvanised steel
>> rusting at completely different rates around my property (some
>> probably on the vehicles that I want to protect) demonstrates that
>> it varies a lot in quality.
>>
>>> BTW, I'm not disputing the electrochemistry that's the basis of these
>>> devices. I'm just not convinced that it applies to these devices in the
>>> real world on cars being driven on roads, particularly in areas where
>>> they're exposed to salt.
>>
>> Salt isn't actually a factor for me in (non-coastal) Australia,
>> which is why this test in a humidity chamber is more relevent:
>> https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/Smithers.pdf
>>
>> However it's unclear why that wasn't sufficient for that company
>> to fend off the Canadian regulators who required they do that other
>> test later before allowing sales to resume. Perhaps there was an
>> issue with the independence of the lab? It looks like the only way
>> to be sure is to try it myself.
> For cheep test parts go to your local panel beater and ask for
> damaged take-off panels.
> But trust me, the crap does NOT WORK on cars. The principal works on
> boats - but I think the implementation is different

It works fine if you park in a pool of salt water. I can't imagine how
it would work in air. What is the current path?