

| Subject: | Re: Electronic Rust Protection? |
| From: | Jere Hawn |
| Date: | Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:06:39 -0700 |
Come on Ben, If you believe that there was intention on part of the seller to rip off the government you're a little off the mark. Those part costs were determined administratively by equally distributing total project costs to all parts and assemblies. It is then touted by some liberal in Congress as if everyone in the military has their own personal $500 hammer and toilet seat. I personally have corrected administrative pricing of things like a flat washer that never indicated use by the manufacturer. In this case the computer distributed the cost of the project and then annually added a factor for inflation. The price I started with was over $70 and in about a 30 seconds the price was renegotiated to less than 50 cents. In short, be careful when listening to only one side of a political discussion, they all sound popular... but each, at best, is only half of a truth. Aboard naval ships we use electronic rust protection called cathodic protection. The electronic portion stabilized the electron transfer from the steel hull to the ocean (salt water) and used zinc in its place. In 1987 it was discovered that the USS New Jersey's protection failed. It took an additional $9+ million dollars to clad weld the bottom of the ship before it could be re-launched. I also believe the phosphates in coolant serves a similar purpose by inhibiting internal corrosion, scaling, and bimetallic corrosion from the different metal the coolant comes in contact with. I have often wondered in the case of a wasser-leaker if a chunk of zinc in the bottom of the coolant tank would offer any additional protection. Electronic rust protection is it possible? Yes. Jere 90 GL 88 GL -----Original Message----- From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of Benjamin Tan Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 3:56 AM To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM Subject: Re: Electronic Rust Protection? In a message dated 8/8/01 3:26:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, hunnam@PNC.COM.AU writes: << The product even caries the endorsement of the US Military so I guess it is not a snake oil product. >> Come on, Ray. That's not exactly what I call a sterling endorsement. You're talking about the same guys who buy $500 hammers and toilet seats. They may even classify snake oil as military spec rodent repellent and buy drums of it at US $1,000 an ounce. Ben T
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »