12V power source question re:electronic rustproofing

[762mm]

Hello,

This question is for the gurus out there, as I can't find any info on this anywhere on the internet. I just bought the CounterAct electronic rust prevention system from a Canadian Tire store (on special for $249 + tax) and have spent the whole day installing it just the way I want it - the box being inside the cab to keep it away from the elements and all wires routed via the floor/body panels/firewall so that they're neat and out of sight & out of the way if I need to do any work on the truck. I followed all instructions to the letter, except for one (and I did not believe this would make any diffrence):

According to the manufacturer, I was supposed to connect the red/black power wires from the unit DIRECTLY to the battery, as the unit monitors the battery level and shuts off if the battery is below 12.3V or so... I said to heck with that, and I connected it to the auxiliary cigarette lighter wires instead, which are always hot whether or not the truck is running (I figured that it's most likely hardwired to the battery anyway). Long story short, the rust prevention box seems to be sounding an audible alarm when plugged in, and it won't shut it off, plus the LED on it blinks really fast... I checked the polarity of the cig lighter power source, and it's fine. I tried to look this up on the manufacturer's website (as the manual is crap), but to no avail. All they have are a bunch of soccer-mom type FAQs.

My question: I would really like to know whether or not the aux cigarette lighter has some sort of an interfering device between itself and the battery that would prevent my CounterAct from working properly... If anyone knows, please let me know. I don't want to return this after all the wiring I've done, plus the wires are cut and spliced in several points... and store installation will probably cost around $100 with taxes, so I don't want to go that way either, especially because I'm just missing one small detail. Thanks in advance.

 

[budwich]

kind of a dumb question but which lead on the lighter did you connect to... Black????

 

[studd469]

762mm, if its not to late i would try and return the product. They don't work! Its the greatest scam ever invented. I bought one for my 04 caviler from the dealer, the car was brand new. They told me there was no need to underspray the car with this device. The bottom of my car is still rusting.

I recently had to get my cathodic protection tested (electronic rust protection for the underground hydrulic pistons for my elevators) I had to call in a company that specializes in rust protection. I asked him about the device that crappy tire sells. He told me that they don't work and that his company has had to testify in court numerous times that these devices are scams. Nothing more then an LED in a box. He said that this device would work but that it has to be submerged in water or under ground. This is why it would work for bridges or like in my case the underground hydrulic pistons for my elevators. He also said that the companies that make these thing get sued, change their company name and continue making the same product under a different name.

 

[762mm]

budwich: The leads on the lighter are black and a brown/striped one... I connected to those. There's no other wires that go to the aux lighter.

studd469: I've made a long research about these systems on the internet and looked up what people had to say about them.. and what it comes out to is that it's pretty much 50/50. Some say (on technical forums) that the idea behind it is sound, others confuse it with the cathodic systems that ships use, which is totally diffrent and uses sea water to ground itself.... Then, finally, the general techie agreement seems to be that the device SHOULD work on the painted surface only, and may not reach the bends in metal...

Another thing is that I know a guy who works at Canadian Tire... This guy has been there forever and restores old classic cars on his free time, and has steered me clear of crappy products in the past. I asked him if this thing works, and he backed it 100%... He says that it does work and reduces rusting by about 80%, and that numerous companies have been using it for a very long time (like Rolls Royce, Volvo, Boeing, etc)... The technology dates from the early 1940's apparently, and was invented by the Brits to prevent aluminum decay on their WWII fighters and bombers.

So, in conclusion, I guess any little bit can help when you live up here in Canada where the roads are like wet salt plains during the winter. It's a 300$ investment that may or may not work as advertised, but I'll take any help I can get to prevent rust (I hate rust with a passion, lol). I have the truck sprayed with chemical oil every year too, and so far it's doing quite well.

Edit: I just connected the device directly to the battery, and it still emits this electronic beep/pulse sound every time the LED flashes (which is like once/second). I'll keep it plugged in, maybe it goes away after the car is "charged"? Anyway, if it doesn't, then back to the store it will go - I can't drive with that thing constantly making that sound inside the cab. What kills me is that there's no mention anywhere (in the manual or CounterAct's crappy website) on whether the noise is normal or not... hell, they don't even mention that the box is capable of making any noise.

 

[762mm]

Done deal!

Ok, well it looks like I had to get this sorted out on my own... I called Canadian Tire (the store that sells CounterAct) and was told that the devices are supposed to make that noise, and that's why they're intended to be installed in the engine bay ONLY. And so the device migrated (with all the damn wiring already done under the dash) under the hood, and re-wired directly to the battery. Here's what I've learned from this installation:

1) The auxilary cigarette lighter has power at all times, and seems to be hard-wired directly to the battery (same voltage, measured at 12.45V with a Fluke multimeter - first reading taken at the battery, second at the lighter wires with same result to the last decimal, no power loss/fluctuation whatsoever. Measurements were taken with the engine off).

2) The CounterAct electronic rusproofing device makes an electronic beep that never goes out every second, and will drive you crazy if placed inside the cab. Installation is to be done EXCLUSIVELY in the engine bay area, not on the inside of the vehicle. Too bad there's no mention of the noise it makes anywhere in the manual, it would've saved me a day of work.

3) After reviewing other forums and doing a lot of research, it is important to remember that the ground has to be placed as far from the front coupler as possible, otherwise this will negate the beneficial effects (if any) of the rustproofing device. I made sure my ground was made across the engine bay from the front coupler, which is attached inside of the right fender. The ground is as far as the cable would allow from that coupler, in the middle of the opposing fender. The rear coupler is located on the inside of the compartment where the jack is stored, and attached to the inside of the body panel. If the system does actually work, this is supposed to be the optimal way to install it.

So, I wish I could do an assesment of the device and see whether or not it actually works, but I don't believe there's any feasible way of verifying that. I guess only time will tell... Actually, it's supposed to make the rotors be rust-free a lot longer, so maybe that will be a positive way to tell... drive around in the rain, and see if there are rust spots on the rotors after a day or so that the truck is parked (normally there will be visible rust). If I see a diffrence, I'll post the results. I'm somewhat sceptical too, but we'll see what happens...

But hey... ricer car dealerships (Acura, Nissan) are pushing these things these days with 10 year body rust warranties if the device is chosen as an option, so I guess there might actually be something behind this. I've seen the rust damage on my parents' 9 year old Nissan Pathfinder, and let me tell you that the dealership would have some major body work to do right now if that thing was still on warranty.

P.S. I would post pics, but I believe I can't post any more pics with my account (there seems to be a ridiculous limit, like 500 kb or something).

 

[SkanlaxJMO]

ocean liners use a type of anti rust. They charge the hulls with a zinc plate that keeps a + charge on the hull of the ship so they don't rust.

 

[762mm]

ocean liners use a type of anti rust. They charge the hulls with a zinc plate that keeps a + charge on the hull of the ship so they don't rust.

Yes, I know... I just spoke to my neighbor who was a ship engineer for a major company in europe while installing the device (he's now retired), and he says that this is standard equipment on any ship, and solved a lot of problems since it was introduced (originally produced in Norway and exported worldwide according to him, with a huge price tag - but well worth it in the long run apparently).

However, the ship version uses sea water to ground itself and spread the charge around the entire hull. Underground pipes are grounded to the ground, and thus operate diffrently too. The car is sitting on 4 rubber tires and has no ground - this is where the technology differs... according to what I've read so far on technical forums, it's supposed to use the electrons from the "-" side of the battery to charge up the car's body negatively like a giant transistor, and keep that charge. This charge is supposed to prevent the completion of the chemical cycle that forms rust...

 

[bluesman2333]

"according to what I've read so far on technical forums, it's supposed to use the electrons from the "-" side of the battery to charge up the car's body negatively like a giant transistor, and keep that charge. This charge is supposed to prevent the completion of the chemical cycle that forms rust..."

Which is why I am highly suspect of this form of cathodic protection. The body is of course already negative. In order for cathodic protection to work you need an exchange of ions which won't happen in a car with rubber tires with an already grounded electrical system. The reason it works in boats is because the electrical system is isolated from the metal hull. On fiberglass boats, cathodic protection isn't needed or used. The zinc plate on a ships hull is a sacrificial anode. It is bonded directly to the hull and is there so as electrolysis takes place, the softer metal will be eaten away and not the steel hull. There is no charge on it other than what is on the hull.

 

[762mm]

Which is why I am highly suspect of this form of cathodic protection. The body is of course already negative. In order for cathodic protection to work you need an exchange of ions which won't happen in a car with rubber tires with an already grounded electrical system. The reason it works in boats is because the electrical system is isolated from the metal hull. On fiberglass boats, cathodic protection isn't needed or used. The zinc plate on a ships hull is a sacrificial anode. It is bonded directly to the hull and is there so as electrolysis takes place, the softer metal will be eaten away and not the steel hull. There is no charge on it other than what is on the hull.

I know there are people who seriously doubt and even declare this as a scam (if it is, it's gonna be the biggest scam in automotive history, considering how many places, including dealerships, are selling these right now)... I'm not totally convinced myself. BUT, if it makes any diffrence, the box requires 2 grounds on the car - one at the negative battery terminal, the other somewhere around the body. Then it has 2 couplers, one placed in the front fender, the other in the rear panel on the opposing side of the car (the furthest point, it's usually recommended to put it behind the tail light). Anyway, since the car is already negatively grounded, is it possible that the device uses it's 2 grounds and 2 couplers that are supposed to cause a dielectric layer to somehow modify the car's charge? I'm no physicist, so I really don't know if the science behind this is sound. I certainly hope so, considering the cost...

 

[High_Order1]

sigh

I just don't get why so many people fall for that tire theory. Electricity that can arc for feet (or miles, in the case of lightning), but can't get the six inches from the rim past the tire to the ground??

No.

Why you don't normally get killed when a vehicle is struck by lightning, or contacts a hot line, is the cab. The cab forms sort of a Faraday cage, spreading the concentrated high current around and then down. Sure, if you step out, and you have one hand on the cab, and one foot on the ground, you just made an easier path to ground via you. But, the tires aren't saving you. If they were, you could stand on a tire in a lightning storm.


Far as cathodic protection on an auto, that's a novel idea. I hadn't heard of that. The sciency word for rust is oxidation; an electrochemical process that occurs when hydrogen, oxygen and metals interact. Especially where dissmilar metals meet. In other words, when Iron and Oxygen can get together in a hydrogen environment, it forms Iron Oxide.

As previously stated, shipborne systems (zincs) use a nonpowered sacrifical element bolted to the hull. This requires no power, as the zinc, being more active an element than iron pushes its' electrons out ok all by itself to mate with the free oxygen.

In the case of piping, bridges, etc., a rectifier provides a current (a stream of electrons) that force electrons out from an anode bed (usually magnesium) in the dirt onto the iron to be protected. The electrons from the magnesium are stripped off the surface of the iron, preventing the iron from giving its' electrons up and forming rust.


Even then there has to be a liquid element involved. The oxygen (oxidation, remember(?) in the liquid has a greater affinity for the anode than it does the ship/pipe/bridge, and so it bonds with it instead.

So, how would this work on a car? There would have to be a replaceable element part, and a circular, complete path for the electron flow. It couldn't just be a pure electrical process, because rust isn't a pure electrical process. It's electrochemical. It relies on the hydrogen in the water to create the return path.

So, could it work? Sure. Will it work when the car is bone dry? Nope. Could you better spend your money figuring out ways to coat your metals to cut off the oxygen and stop the rust? Yup.


........ I think.


-Shawn

 

[High_Order1]

ohh.... Since I am getting my nerd on....

"like a giant transistor"

Transistors don't store electricity. They only have two functions; 1) a switch, and 2) a valve.

oh - 3) an incredibly important part not easily replaced by normal people so jackasses can charge exhorbitant fees to fix them.

-Shawn

 

[High_Order1]

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/04/rust-4.shtm

204 THOUSAND dollars in refunds.

The redress fund was established following resolution of FTC charges that RustEvader Corporation, of Altoona, Pennsylvania, and its former president, David McCready, made false claims that the electronic devices used current from the battery to inhibit corrosion in the body of the vehicle to which it was attached. The devices are ineffective, the FTC alleged. The Commission entered a default judgment against RustEvader Corporation last summer; McCready agreed under a settlement with the FTC not to make the challenged claims and to pay $200,000 in redress. The balance of the money was obtained from the bankruptcy proceedings of RustEvader Corporation

 

[bluesman2333]

In this case, we are talking about 12 volts. The tires are insulators and 12 volts will not flash over like lightening will, around the tire to earth. The tires are infinite resistance, even to lightening. It's the flashover event in ionized air that conducts the electricity.

 

[High_Order1]

WOW. I need to go to radio shack and get some wire and project boxes... $600 a PIECE???

For Release: June 7, 1996
FTC Law Judge Upholds Charges Against “Rust Evader”


Prohibits Use of Brand Name


A Federal Trade Commission administrative law judge has prohibited RustEvader Corporation from using the names “Rust Evader” or “Rust Buster” for a purported electronic corrosion control device for automobiles that the judge said is not effective in substantially reducing corrosion, despite the company’s advertising campaign to the contrary. Judge James P. Timony’s order follows FTC charges that RustEvader made false claims about its Rust Evader product and about a demonstration and studies regarding its efficacy. Timony upheld the charges in a default judgment he issued following RustEvader’s general failure to respond to requests for information during the discovery period before trial on the case.

RustEvader Corporation, also known as Rust Evader Corporation, is based in Altoona, Pennsylvania. RustEvader also does business as REC Technologies.

The FTC issued a complaint detailing its charges against RustEvader and company president, David F. McCready, in August 1995. Both answered the FTC complaint in October, denying the charges. In April, however, the charges against McCready were withdrawn from litigation so that the FTC could consider a proposed settlement agreement. According to Timony’s opinion, RustEvader repeatedly failed to respond to FTC discovery requests. Therefore, Timony struck RustEvader’s answer to the FTC complaint and issued today’s order, finding the facts in the case to be as the FTC alleged.

According to Timony’s findings, RustEvader falsely represented that:

Rust Evader is effective in substantially reducing corrosion in motor vehicle bodies, and that the company had evidence to back up this claim;
a salt-water tank demonstration of the product’s efficacy accurately reflected how Rust Evader protects motor vehicle bodies from corrosion when, in truth, the process used in the demonstration is much more effective under water than under conditions that a motor vehicle normally encounters; and
reports of laboratory and other tests performed on the Rust Evader that the firm provided to dealers constituted scientific proof that the product substantially reduces motor vehicle body corrosion.
In addition, according to the default judgment, a provision in the RustEvader warranty, which conditions warranty coverage on the consumer paying the labor costs of having the vehicle inspected every 24 months by an authorized Rust Evader dealer, violated federal warranty law. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty-FTC Improvements Act prohibits conditioning warranty coverage for products costing more than $5 on consumers paying for a service identified by brand, trade or corporate name.

Judge Timony has ordered RustEvader Corporation to stop using the terms Rust Evader or Rust Buster and to stop making the challenged claims for the Rust Evader product. The order also requires RustEvader to have appropriate competent and reliable evidence to back up claims about the performance, efficacy or attributes of any product for use in motor vehicles. In addition, the order prohibits RustEvader from misrepresenting the existence or results of any test or study, or that any demonstration or picture proves any material feature or quality of any product for use in motor vehicles.

RustEvader also is prohibited from conditioning warranty coverage on the purchase of a certain brand-named or trade-named product or service, and to notify Rust Evader dealers and distributors of the FTC action and the fact that the old warranty provision is void. The dealer notification letter also must state that RustEvader will terminate dealers who continue to use the advertising and promotion materials containing the challenged claims.

Judge Timony’s order is subject to review by the full Commission either on the Commission’s own motion or appeal by RustEvader. If not appealed within 30 days, it would become the Commission’s decision and the order would be effective 60 days after it is served on RustEvader Corporation.

Copies of the initial decision and order, as well as the complaint and other documents associated with this case, are available from the FTC’s Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202-326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 1-866-653-4261. To find out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710. FTC news releases and other materials also are available on the Internet at the FTC’s World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov



Media Contact:
Bonnie Jansen or Claudia Bourne Farrell
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

-Shawn

 

[bluesman2333]

Good find, High_Order1.

 

[High_Order1]

Bluesman -

In the case of rusting, you wouldn't be pulling electrons from the ground. The ion interaction happens from the moisture content in the air. Touching the ground doesn't change the equation as far as the device interaction goes.

In the case of vehicles and high voltage sources, the tires aren't the primary mode by which the occupants are protected. I don't know that I agree that vulcanized rubber is infinitely resistive either, so I won't comment without further study.

-Shawn

 

[High_Order1]

OH - dang. Almost forgot. 12 volts can arc over. It's the basis for metal arc welding.

-Shawn

 

[bluesman2333]

OH - dang. Almost forgot. 12 volts can arc over. It's the basis for metal arc welding.

-Shawn

Except you establish an arc before opening up the gap from a starting point of metal to metal contact. With flashover, the gap already exists and ionized gas is the conductor. Nothing is infinitely resistive because all matter has electrons. For the purposes of discussion in our everyday experience, the words insulator or conductor only denote things that can pass or can't pass electricity up to around 15 KV.

Re the cathodic protection working because of the moisture in the air, I can see that happening. Unfortunately for this particular system, it would need to be at much higher voltages and currents to actually work.

 

[762mm]

According to CounterAct and what they claim, the two couplers emit something like 300V or 600V (I don't remember which) at their tips, but with low amperage.... the device changes 12V into a much higher voltage, like a power inverter or something. The paint on the body/insulation on the coupler changes that into some sort of a protection for the car that travels through the metal all over the structure.

As far as the electrochemical reaction is concerned, I remember reading somewhere (I think one of the tech forums) that the lead in the battery might be involved to complete that chemical reaction.

I don't know much about it, but I seriously think that the Consumer Reports magazine and other media would be all over this if this exact same technology has been already declared a scam in 1995... After all, that's how they make themselves popular and sell their magazine. And I don't recall hearing a peep out of them about this, and this very same CounterAct box has been around for like 3 years, sold and advertised all over Canada. Plus they claim to have sold this to salt mining companies for their big Tonka trucks and for city plow trucks for decades, and apparently all these customers are very satisfied (biased info? maybe... who knows). Just my .02....

P.S. I'm not saying that any of you are wrong and that I am right... on the contrary, I'm not even entirely sure on how this stuff is supposed to work (there's a patent number out there apparently, if any of you can understand advanced electronics and care to examine how the box is built). Everyone's replies/opinions are read and very appreciated by the way. Man, I wish they could test this stuff out on "MythBusters" or something, lol.... love that show.

 

[bluesman2333]

The claim that the thing puts out 300 or 600 volts is suspect to me too. If you have two points of contact on opposite ends of the car body, the resistance isn't enough to allow much over a volt or two due to the extremely low resistance in the steel. You could get some voltage with AC and some caps, but this is DC we are talking about. As to the claims of who is buying or using the units, I would want proof that the units are still installed, still working and that the units they are on have significantly less corrosion or rust than comparable units in similar service.