DIY Electronic Vehicle Rust Prevention

Don't waste your time. It's already been done. They don't work.

The best prevention against rust is to ensure that the metal is adequately coated with something that forms a durable and effective moisture barrier, and while electric processes exist to remove rust, there are none that prevent rust from occurring.

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.

My sister had one installed on her new Neon - which was later purchased by my youngest daughter. The entire front lip seam of the hood rusted away along with several brake lines and there was significant rust on the bottom door seams. This on a car that was kept pretty clean at all times. My "strong impression" was that the device was useless.

A good friend had the device installed on his new Pontiac car and GMC pickup. Both vehicles went back to the dealer/installer for the annual checkups and had THOUSANDS of dollars of rust repair performed under the provided rust warranty. Truck fenders replaced, truck hood replaced, box sides replaced - cab coprners and body mounts repaired - even rear step bumper replced IIRC. The hood and trunk were repaired on the car as well as front fender and lower rear quarter replcaement. The only value he got out of those devices was the rust repairs done because the devices did nothing. He sure got his money's worth out of both of them but it almost appeared the vehicles rusted MORE than average - - - certainly not less. I asked my neighbor - a chemical engineer - his opinion of the device and process and he stated unequivically there was no valid scientific hypothesis behind the product. He said on steel ships immersed in salt water the theory "held water" as well as on iron bridges subjected to road salt brine - but the implementation on a vehicle was at the very least "extremely problematic" - and this from a prof with numerous very advanced patents to his name - mostly in nanotechnology and advanced chromaography and instrumentation / sampling.

My Ford Ranger without the device - having been oil sprayed regularly for the first 10 years of it's life and sporadically for the last 18 has a LOT LESS rust than either the Neon, Pontiac or GMC and is still on the road after twice as many yars as any ot the three. (yes, I replaced the box but it was in better shape before replacement at 25 years of age than the GMC was after all the repairs at age 12). My 1988 Chrysler with 244000km on it at 18 years of age, oil sprayed twice in it's life, with no device installed had one hole repaired in the passenger's side floor and no visible rust when I sold (not scrapped) it in 2006.

These experiences are from south western Ontario, where in an average year (this year is ANYTHING BUT!!!) we have a lot of snow and use a LOT of salt on the roads. Just about 30 miles from Hubcaps

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.

The last 10 or 15 years rust has been a klot kess of a problem on North Amserican cars too - a lot of galvanized metal and better paint and primer solutions - but with road salt ANYTHING can rust. See a lot of rusdty B-M and BMW cars as well as VW - maybe not QUITE as bad as GM. Mazda has had a serious rist situation at least up until the last few years, among with Mitsubishi.The fact that M-B and BMW tend to rust a little less is LIKELY due to their owners taking better care of them

Not like in the eighties!!! Metalurgy is a lot better (better methods of recycling steel) and elrctro etch dip primers along with selective zinc coating and better seam sealing has made a HUGE difference.A six year old car was commonly rusted through in numerous places - now 12 year old cars here are still often basically rust free. Uni-body consstruction eliminated reusted out frame rails but you still see k-members and suspension arms rusting out - along with fuel lines and brake lines. Repaints used to be common on cars less than 10 years old - most cars today end up in the scrapyard 15 years old or more with original paint unless they have had colission damage. When prople say they don't make them like they used to I say "THANK GOD!!!!"

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?

They only draw less than 1 Ma of current. Some claim as little as

That was my understanding, very little current draw.

Good point.

I was under the impression some of them mentioned a *frequency* of some sort but, as I have said previously, I have seen nothing in the way of detailed documentation on how they operate.

As a capacitor, I expect the car body is very 'leaky', so keeping it charged would require a constant current to offset losses. This may be why the pulsed signals are preferred by at least the better documented designs. The first concern by the Canadian regulators seems to have been whether there was a capacitance effect at all or simply a dead short, hence a lot of test documention is about showing that the charge can be measured all over the surface of the vehicle's paint.

I already posted links to papers which describe how at least one device uses short pulses to charge then discharge the capacitance. There's more detail in the patent for an earlier device from that manufacturer: