Salt and vinegar for rust removal

Nonsense. Why on earth not? You do not have to know WHY to know it DOES.

That most woodworkers are not chemists. Do you dispute that? If so, on what grounds?

I am not criticizing your reasons for not recommending it. I'm not even saying back off. I am saying that the topic has gone on too deeply and too long to be considered a woodworking topic. It is now OT.

Not interested in playing any more of your silly games.

You really do have reading comprehension problems, don't you?

Marvelous. Or so you think. What sensibilities, by the way? No. Forget it. I forgot to drop this thing in with subject filters last time through. It has now developed it's own silliness, over and above the original unnecessary complexity.

Enjoy your continued messing about.

Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Reply to
Charlie Self
Loading thread data ...

And that's the whole point. It does make a difference - I know, I've tried it both ways.

Why does it work? I don't really care.

Reply to
Larry Blanchard

I find it interesting, but my background is in chemical engineering.

Looks like at least some of them are in Iraq. Better change your sig line soon! :)

dwhite

Reply to
Dan White

On 17 May 2004 16:00:39 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) posted:

I thought you'd thrown your rocks and then run away.

Are you saying that aircraft pilots don't understand ALL the mechanisms of flight? I'll bet you don't fly.

So you didn't make this statement of the bleedin' obvious in support of your whine that this discussion shouldn't be here?

Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse?

Otherwise, why did you make such a silly, obvious and apparently irrelevant claim here? No wonder you snipped it.

Bullshit. If you have come to a point where you can't follow it anymore, just stop reading, and don't butt in with objections that it is irrelevant here. Derusting tools is an interest of many here I've read over the past seven years. Not everyone is as resistant to learning as you appear to be.

You butted in with your OT whinge, remember? I thought you'd already left. Do you really depend on filters that much?

My incomprehension is what, exactly? (I thought you wouldn't be able to put your finger on it.) Are you are now denying you jumped in here whinging that this thread you could not follow was irrelevant, and then you claimed you had pulled the plug? What's not to comprehend?

The sensibilities that prompted you to comment on the similarity of your name and my description of your behaviour. I considered it fleetingly and found it eminently ignorable. Your sensibilities prompted you to comment. No problem, but perhaps you might try to ignore it too?

Unnecessary for you. Again, you show your own selfishness. Do you not have the ability to ignore what you have no interest in? Is that why you need the crutch of filters?

Like we were before you decided to inject your spoiler? We will, thankyou.

Reply to
Sandy

On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:44:10 -0700, Larry Blanchard posted:

Interesting. And do you expect everyone here to have this lack of interest, like Charlie does?

I, for one, care why it is reported to work.

You appear not to have considered the downsides of soaking rusted ferrous metal in salt solution? Museums have a hell of a job removing salt from ferrous artifacts found in the sea.

Reply to
Sandy

Analogies aside, de-rusting a rusty article is not really a very complex process, nor are there "many" decisions to make, at least not in my understanding of "complex" and "many." Hyperbole, perhaps?

You must have misread, then. Alexy nailed it:

"That he is not a chemist, and that most woodworkers are not chemists, and are probably more interested in whether it works than how it works."

Additionally, Charlie's suggestion was that the discussion had drifted far enough afield to warrant an "OT" in the subject line, not that it shouldn't be discussed. Your "reading" goes a good bit beyond hyperbole; it teeters precipitously toward mischaracterization.

Jim

Reply to
Jim Wilson

On Tue, 18 May 2004 06:30:01 GMT, Jim Wilson posted:

Nope, comparative. Cf dropping a rock on your foot :)

For the derusting, you must decide what vinegar to use, how long to soak, how much salt, what is that black sludge in the bottom, what sort of steel is it, how much to rinse afterwards, what to apply afterwards, and do you dry it, and how? And those are just a few decisions/questions that occur off the top of my head.

I have at the moment on my kitchen sink two tumblers with half an inch of vinegar in each and excess salt in one of them. I have placed several very rusty nails in both tumblers. They have been there for five hours so far. Nothing much is happening, except for a very pale yellowish tinge to the solution. The non-salted one seems a little darker yellow than the salted one, but this could be an optical illusion from the white salt sitting on the bottom. I will leave them there until the nails seem to be clean where treated, and then rinse in tap water, and place out in the weather again for however long. See what the subsequent corrosion is on the cleaned areas. I do hope I get some cleaned areas to compare :)

My conclusion so far is that using vinegar to clean off rust is a waste of bloody time :)

To derust some historic old very rusted horseshoes years ago, I consulted the conservation technicians at the local museum. The technical discussion was fascinating, and I learned a lot from it. But you had to have a basis in chemistry.

In the context of whining that our discussion was OT for this forum. Otherwise, what was the aim of his message?

Nope, strictly speaking, OT subjects should not be discussed on newsgroups. Of course they are, but as at least two of us thought our discussion was on topic, I suggest Charlie was out of line. Look at the subject header.

So why did he say that he was not a chemist and most woodworkers were not chemists? Just idle chit chat? Sorry, I thought he was trying to make a point in his context of complaining about our discussion. The point I received was that because he didn't understand the discussion, it was irrelevant on this forum. Otherwise, you are saying that Charlie makes silly comments, out of context, and is therefore perhaps a bit loopy? I thought he was just a busybody wanting to have a moan about something. Could he not just have ignored what did not interest HIM?

What really was the point of Charlie's interjection? It contributed nothing except to complain about what *his* message was even more guilty of. If he was not interested, he should have just ignored it.

Reply to
Sandy

Ok, perhaps more complex than dropping a rock on your foot, but that doesn't say a whole lot, does it? (G)

It certainly is if you watch it. (G)

That wasn't the context. He started by disagreeing with your assertion that "What we need explaining is why the presence of sodium chloride in the vinegar is advantageous." He noted that "we" non-chemist woodworkers do not need that explained at all. We need only know whether it works, not why.

Indeed, even a correct, lucid, and perfectly presented explanation would be of limited utility to the majority, although it might well be interesting to many of us. An inconclusive, jargon-filled technical debate would have to have considerably less utility, wouldn't you agree?

Only afterward did he observe that the thread had wandered into OT territory, and even then he did not suggest aborting the thread, but rather that the subject line should have been altered.

Don't get me wrong -- personally, I am quite interested in the discussion, and have been following the thread closely, but obviously I do have a penchant for useless academic debate :-). I interjected because I felt your take on Charlie's post was wrong, and that the points he was really trying to make were valid, to wit: 1) most readers of this NG neither need nor want to understand this stuff, and 2) the thread has drifted off topic for this NG. I still want to hear it.

Jim

Reply to
Jim Wilson

There. Does that settle it? :)

dwhite

Reply to
Dan White

LOL! I figured everyone else had already bailed on the thread! (G)

Jim

Reply to
Jim Wilson

Hell no! I've got my own two samples of rusted iron soaking in Palmolive right now. Where's Madge? Actually I am doing my own salt/no salt test and will report here when it is done.

dwhite

Reply to
Dan White

On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:49:00 GMT, Jim Wilson posted:

No, but then I didn't introduce that comparison :)

Well it's approaching 24 hours and I've just had 9 hours' sleep and the situation has not changed. Very pale yellow in the non-salt vinegar, and if you have a really good imagination, a very,very pale yellow in the salt vinegar. The nails have suffered NO observable change.

So why did he go on to assert that our discussion was irrelevant? Your explanation does not account for that. Seems he should have kept his mouth shut if he was no longer interested. There are many threads that I'm not interested in, and I just ignore them. When our discussion/experiments are done, we should have a clear conclusion as to whether it is at all efficaceous. With or without salt. WTF is off topic about that? Sheeesh!

So it is decidedly NOT off topic as Charlie was asserting? Look at the subject line. Many woodworkers are interested in deructing old valuable tools, or so I've read here.

No jargon in our discussion, sorry. Yes a few technical terms that are easy to find out about if you don't already know, and all technical subjects must have these terms and must deal with technicalities to understand them. Understanding brings ability to adjust for different circumstances, or so I find. Someone suggested that salt was excellent in vinegar solution for removing rust. I queried this as my basic understanding of chemistry didn't tell me why this would be so. I've now done an experiment that shows that vinegar with and without salt is virtually useless in derusting rusty ferrous metal. I always followed this in practice (never having had any successs with vinegar in the past few times I've tried it.) Adding salt makes no difference if you are generous. In my experiment, it was less effective than just the plain vinegar.

On what ground? It was NOT Off Topic. More than one of us was interested in it. And it was to do with derusting woodworking tools as per the subject header. And then what was the overall aim of his message? To have a whinge, No?

Interesting that you think it is useless. I've found through my life, that one of the handiest bits of knowledge I carry around with me, is my basic chemistry. It helps in just about everything I do.

And his point? Can't they just ignore it? I take it as read, that not every reader here is interested in every topic. I ignore most of them. I don't interject that the topic is OT.

Which it patently hasn't. The subject header says it all.

Then, by definition, it is ON topic.

I read Charlies message as someone being selfish and wanting no discussions that either he couldn't follow, or that he was not interested in. He should have ignored it, like most other rational posters obviously did. Does he often play "NetCop"?

Reply to
Sandy

On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:07:14 GMT, "Dan White" posted:

Settle what?

That salt and vinegar are useless for derusting rusty tools? Pretty much, I would contend, so far.

That Charlie was being a whinging busybody by complaining about our discussion? Yep, see my reponse to Jim.

Reply to
Sandy

On Tue, 18 May 2004 22:19:36 GMT, Jim Wilson posted:

So I shouldn't have bothered to show the results of my experiment? No-one else is interested?

It really staggers me that folks are happy to continue with a useless, but potentially harmful derusting technique just because the rationale gets a little hard. OK, I'll keep my mouth shut in future :)

Reply to
Sandy

See the smiley? I was jesting about the discussion between you and me. (G)

As regards the rest of your post, you've made your points and I've made mine, so I guess we're done.

Cheers!

Jim

Reply to
Jim Wilson

Hey, lighten up! :) It was just a joke. I'm on your side, anyway. I have some rusted metal soaking for about 36 hours now. I'll stop it Wed afternoon and see what I get. I'll let you know, fwiw.

dwhite

woodworkers

Reply to
Dan White

On Wed, 19 May 2004 05:22:12 GMT, "Dan White" posted:

Sorry, that sounded much more serious than intended :)

I'm now getting a bit of effervescence in mine. Carbonates dissolving, I guess. That's a more promising sign, but 28 hours shows very little cleaning. Not long ago, I stuck a very rusted hose clamp (hydraulically applied) in vinegar in the hope that it would fall apart. What it did do was to make the non-rusted chromed areas nice and shiny. As there was still a lot of metal left, and not all rust as it originally seemed, it required 3000 rpm of an 8" alumina wheel :)

My impression so far is that the salt impedes the derusting process. I have read in places that salt is added to vinegar as a mild abrasive when rubbing a rusted item clean. This is a very different process than the one claimed in this thread.

Reply to
Sandy

On Wed, 19 May 2004 04:49:52 GMT, Jim Wilson posted:

Of course, and I was adding my 2 cents to the conversation.

Until we post our results, perhaps?

And to you too.

Reply to
Sandy

First of all let me say that my interest in this thread, started by Sandy, was caused by my own questioning of why salt helped clean copper pots with vinegar. Months ago I poured vinegar on a copper pot and it did nothing. Then I sprinkled salt on, and the oxides just wiped away. I figure whatever mechanism was working there is probably not that different from what happens with iron. So on with my not-so-scientifically-controlled test:

I didn't have any rusted nails, but I did find two old 1.25 lb free weights. These are 4" in diameter with a 1" hole for the barbell to go through. The annular region between this hole and the outer edge of the weight was recessed and could hold maybe a tablespoon worth of liquid, possibly more. The annular region was embossed with the manufacturer's name and the weight. Each weight was rusted moderately and had about the same amount of rust. This means that there is more rust than you could casually remove, but not so much that the weight had deep pits.

I poured vinegar into both, and then added an excess of salt to one of them. Within hours, both were effervescing slightly. (They had bubbles collecting on the surface). Note that this was done in contact with air, and with plenty of surface area. After 48 hours I poured the liquid out of each into test tube like containers. What I observe is that the vinegar/salt sample was a light yellowish/orange color, and contained a fair amount of black flecks and little chunks, in addition to some very small black particles. On the other hand, the vinegar/no salt solution was a deep red color, very different from the vinegar/salt sample. It had no flecks or chunks of black material, but did have a fair amount of very fine, small black particles. In both cases, black material built up on the edges of the liquid, and also on some of the submerged surfaces.

I cleaned the weights by hand and observed that the rust was gone from both, but the vinegar/salt weight looked SLIGHTLY cleaner. I then used a brass brush to clean them up further. After drying them out, it appears that the vinegar/salt weight is a little brighter looking. The vinegar only weight looks darker, as if there is dark material caught up in the fine pits and crevices of the weight.

Overall I'd say that there is a definite difference between the two as one liquid was light yellow or orange, and the other was deep red. The vinegar/salt weight also looked a little cleaner, but it is a very slight difference. It could be that these old weights just looked a little different from the start.

What caused the red color in one and not the other? Is the iron chloride complex colorless, while FeCl3 is red?

Sorry for being long-winded. Hope this spurs some ideas.

dwhite PS. I might add clean water to each next to see if there is any difference in corrosion rate as postulated by Sandy.

Reply to
Dan White

Check your inorganic chemistry books under electronegativity. Sodium's about as good as it gets, iron and copper not in the same league. Of course it helps to have a good acid electrolyte in your cell.

Now try cleaning your silver with baking soda in an aluminum pan....

Reply to
George

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.