On 3/5/2024 3:06 PM, cshenk wrote:
> Bud Frede 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.
>>
>> The painted panels started corroding within a couple of months and
>> were pretty damaged by the end of the test. A lot of the corrosion
>> started at the edges where the metal was bare, but there was
>> corrosion that started in the middle of the panels as well. I figured
>> that the edge corrosion would be similar to what would happen to a
>> surface with a scratch in the paint.
>>
>> He did have some panels in another enclosure that were not connected
>> to one of the devices. There wasn't much, if any difference between
>> the sets of panels. They all rusted.
>>
>> The test was done in the late '80s, so I'd expect that coatings
>> technology has greatly improved since then, plus I know that at least
>> some (all?) of the car makers now use galvanized steel for body
>> parts. There's possibly less need for one of these devices now than
>> there was.
>>
>> I'm not telling anyone what to buy or not buy, but I know that for
>> myself I wouldn't spend the money on these gadgets. I'd rather put
>> that money into washing my car to try to clean the salt off.
>>
>> I think my friend wound up having more fun building the test rigs than
>> anything else. Running the tests themselves was about as fun as
>> watching grass grow. :-)
>>
>> BTW, I'm not disputing the electrochemistry that's the basis of these
>> devices. I'm just not convinced that it applies to these devices in
>> the real world on cars being driven on roads, particularly in areas
>> where they're exposed to salt.
>
> Interesting read and thanks!

So, if you park your car immersed in a pool of salt water it works. How
does that relate to a car parked in air?