On 28/02/2024 8:23 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In aus.electronics alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> My rust problems are in upper body panels, not the chassis. The
> vehicles are from the 80s and 90s so it's had time to develop even
> though there's no road salting going on here in Australia. But it's
> from humidity and trapped moisture.

Your rust problems are caused by poor designed and built. You will not
solve your problems with electronic snake oil. You will *only* solve
your problems by dismantling the vehicle to the point where the known
problem areas can be dressed and coated with an effective durable
moisture barrier, and then sealing the area to prevent ingress.

> Those tests with salt spray are therefore actually less
> representative of my conditions than this test which used a
> humidity chamber:
> https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/Smithers.pdf
>
> So I know _I_ would benefit from slowing down the rust process in
> body panels. If everyone else (except plenty of people with old
> vehicles who I know in real life) thinks it's not a problem in the
> first place, then maybe _that's_ why the devices aren't popular, as
> many people keep pointing out.

They're not popular because they _don't_ _work_.

This is really basic. There is no magical process that prevents metal
corrosion in free air, and if all it took was a 10 buck rectifier to
prevent vehicles from rusting manufacturers would have given up on the
expensive process of multiple anti corrosion body dips on the assembly
line and just used one of these magical devices instead :)

Seriously, you have looked until the cows come home and have found
nothing credible, and that should be enough to tell you that these
devices should be lumped into the same category as bracelets that
prevent cancer or Peter Brock's Energy Polariser.

> Then again there's a section for rust-stopper paint products in
every car parts store here, many
> with equally dubious-sounding claims about painting over rust etc.

Read the fine print. There are bullshit claims in every market segment.
It's called "advertising", and it preys on ignorance.

Like it's doing to you.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 28/02/2024 7:53 am, Noddy wrote:

> Seriously, you have looked until the cows come home and have found
> nothing credible, and that should be enough to tell you that these
> devices should be lumped into the same category as bracelets that
> prevent cancer or Peter Brock's Energy Polariser.
>

Oh, like your claims of qualifications then... since nothing credible
has ever been found to support those either.

--
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 28/02/2024 8:53 am, Frank wrote:
> On 2/27/2024 4:23 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> In aus.electronics alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> How representative of rust problems on cars is the test detailed above
>>> performed on two body panels?  The main problem is not necessarily body
>>> panels but rust destroying chassis parts etc. beneath the car.
>>
>> My rust problems are in upper body panels, not the chassis. The
>> vehicles are from the 80s and 90s so it's had time to develop even
>> though there's no road salting going on here in Australia. But it's
>> from humidity and trapped moisture.
>>
>> Those tests with salt spray are therefore actually less
>> representative of my conditions than this test which used a
>> humidity chamber:
>> https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/Smithers.pdf
>>
>> So I know _I_ would benefit from slowing down the rust process in
>> body panels. If everyone else (except plenty of people with old
>> vehicles who I know in real life) thinks it's not a problem in the
>> first place, then maybe _that's_ why the devices aren't popular, as
>> many people keep pointing out. Then again there's a section for
>> rust-stopper paint products in every car parts store here, many
>> with equally dubious-sounding claims about painting over rust etc.
>>
>
> When the body in white is dipped in the phosphatizing treatment then
> ELPO bubbles trapped may prevent treatment.  I recall cars in the rust
> belt rusting on top of the fenders.  They eventually remedied this.

We had a Simca in the Netherlands and the top of the front guards rusted
out so bad that it had gaping holes. But that probably didn't have much
in the way of rust prevention treatment. Everything back then rusted out
in a few short years thanks to the salty snow slurry.

--
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 28/02/2024 8:53 am, Frank wrote:
> On 2/27/2024 4:23 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> In aus.electronics alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> How representative of rust problems on cars is the test detailed above
>>> performed on two body panels?  The main problem is not necessarily body
>>> panels but rust destroying chassis parts etc. beneath the car.
>>
>> My rust problems are in upper body panels, not the chassis. The
>> vehicles are from the 80s and 90s so it's had time to develop even
>> though there's no road salting going on here in Australia. But it's
>> from humidity and trapped moisture.
>>
>> Those tests with salt spray are therefore actually less
>> representative of my conditions than this test which used a
>> humidity chamber:
>> https://www.finalcoat.com/assets/lab_tests/Smithers.pdf
>>
>> So I know _I_ would benefit from slowing down the rust process in
>> body panels. If everyone else (except plenty of people with old
>> vehicles who I know in real life) thinks it's not a problem in the
>> first place, then maybe _that's_ why the devices aren't popular, as
>> many people keep pointing out. Then again there's a section for
>> rust-stopper paint products in every car parts store here, many
>> with equally dubious-sounding claims about painting over rust etc.
>>
>
> When the body in white is dipped in the phosphatizing treatment then
> ELPO bubbles trapped may prevent treatment.  I recall cars in the rust
> belt rusting on top of the fenders.  They eventually remedied this.

We had a Simca in the Netherlands and the top of the front guards rusted
out so bad that it had gaping holes. But that probably didn't have much
in the way of rust prevention treatment. Everything back then rusted out
in a few short years thanks to the salty snow slurry.

--
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 1/3/2024 1:33 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 28/02/2024 7:53 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>> Seriously, you have looked until the cows come home and have found
>> nothing credible, and that should be enough to tell you that these
>> devices should be lumped into the same category as bracelets that
>> prevent cancer or Peter Brock's Energy Polariser.
>>
>
>
> Oh, like your claims of qualifications then... since nothing credible
> has ever been found to support those either.

Had Darren any credible proof, how many seconds do you reckon it would
take him to post it here? One? Two? But it has been *years* and *still*
no credible evidence has ever been sighted.

At least you could, back in the day, *buy* a *physical* Brock Energy
Polarizer, you could hold it in your hands, you could *test* it for
yourself. Darren's qualifications, on the other hand, are entirely 100%
*mythical*.

--
Xeno

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

On 1/03/2024 12:33 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 28/02/2024 7:53 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>> Seriously, you have looked until the cows come home and have found
>> nothing credible, and that should be enough to tell you that these
>> devices should be lumped into the same category as bracelets that
>> prevent cancer or Peter Brock's Energy Polariser.
>>
>
>
> Oh, like your claims of qualifications then... since nothing credible
> has ever been found to support those either.

The Tom and Jerry show used to be vaguely amusing, unfortunately all
comedy has a use by date and these days, it's just boring.