Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An answer as to Evapo-rust and springs breaking

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Arcane View Post
    Surprisingly enough Princess Auto sells it here in a 13.2 L (3.5 US gallons) container for C$79.99 which is US$62.85 It even has a plastic container/strainer inside like the old pails of carb cleaner used to have.

    Thats a good deal. bout $18US a gallon. It seems to be very fixed in price ($23 gal) around here. JR
    My old yahoo group. Bridgeport Mill Group

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...port_mill/info

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Arcane View Post
      From http://evaporust.ca/faqs/



      Correlation isn't causation of course but I do suspect there's a link between ^this^ and the springs breaking.
      That's just the residual carbon from the RUSTED steel.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Bob Engelhardt View Post
        I bought some ER to try (haven't yet) on Amazon for $20/gal, shipped (free with Prime).
        That's how I buy mine At my door in 2 days or less.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by lakeside53 View Post
          That's just the residual carbon from the RUSTED steel.
          Of course it is. No one claimed otherwise and that's exactly what the quote from the ER site said it was from. I simply put forth the possibility that ER removing it from the metal MIGHT have a deleterious effect upon the metal.
          Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

          Comment


          • #35
            So I have put my five gallons of evaporust in a ten gallon vessle. I am hoping for a good clean. The parts are very clean. JR
            My old yahoo group. Bridgeport Mill Group

            https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...port_mill/info

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Arcane View Post
              Of course it is. No one claimed otherwise and that's exactly what the quote from the ER site said it was from. I simply put forth the possibility that ER removing it from the metal MIGHT have a deleterious effect upon the metal.
              I don't know if we are saying the same thing, but but it's not removing it from the metal - it's already gone from the steel and is just particles within the oxides. If the strength left is from the caked on rust, then it was all over for the springs in any case.

              Comment


              • #37
                Some people use molasses to derust steel parts. They say never to put rusty springs into molasses because they will break when put back into use.
                My understanding was that molasses removes rust by chelation - as does Evaporust, only MUCH faster.
                So maybe there is a connection.
                I suggest someone contact a chemist at the makers of Evaporust and ask. Maybe a metallurgist might know a reason too...
                Be interesting to find out.

                Sent from my InFocus M808 using Tapatalk

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by lakeside53 View Post
                  I don't know if we are saying the same thing, but but it's not removing it from the metal - it's already gone from the steel and is just particles within the oxides. If the strength left is from the caked on rust, then it was all over for the springs in any case.
                  Particles of carbon in the rust makes sense since iron oxide itself is carbon free, but you're right! The carbon that was in the steel that rusts will be left over and that is what makes the black coating. My apologies, Sir!
                  Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by lakeside53 View Post
                    I don't know if we are saying the same thing, but but it's not removing it from the metal - it's already gone from the steel and is just particles within the oxides. If the strength left is from the caked on rust, then it was all over for the springs in any case.
                    Carbon is not really very reactive, so the ER will not be likely to "remove it", more likely to remove the rust particles from around the carbon. That would leave the non-reactive carbon n place. I have no idea if there is enough carbon to form a significant coating, since most spring steels will have no more than about 0.6% or so pf actual carbon content. But whatever is left might form a coating.

                    On the other hand, if you have ever seen a caliper spring, you would know right away that it is a somewhat thin piece of curved steel that is ALWAYS under a goodly amount of tension. And the spring is the only thing that holds the caliper together.

                    Rust has just about zero springiness. So, if rust was all that was holding the caliper together, it would shatter and the caliper would come apart the very first time the thing was lifted up, or especially if the legs of the caliper were moved at all. So it is pretty unlikely that four separate calipers were rusted right through to begin with.

                    I do not consider that effect to be anything AGAINST Evaporust, it's just something to consider when using the stuff. You would take the same precautions with electrolysis, or phosphoric, vinegar, etc.
                    2801 3147 6749 8779 4900 4900 4900

                    Keep eye on ball.
                    Hashim Khan


                    It's just a box of rain, I don't know who put it there.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I sent an e-mail to Evaporust customer service on Friday asking if ER caused any damage or embrittlement to spring steel. I got back an e-mail from Billy Allen, Marketing and Customer Relations Director stating; "Evaporust will not harm spring steel. causes NO embrittlement.

                      I don't know how to display this on this site, but am more that willing to forward the letter to any doubters willing to send me their e-mail address.
                      Jim H.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        The issue of embrittlement is a totally DIFFERENT issue from what happens with stress-assisted corrosion. Two different things, not related.

                        And the corrosion is NOT a reason to avoid ER, either. Just something to consider when using it. Everyone seems to think I am slamming ER, but it ain't so.

                        You , as a user of ER, can try it, I suppose. If you do not find any issues, then we will have one who says yes (the PM poster) and one who says no (you), and can flip a coin.
                        Last edited by J Tiers; 11-06-2017, 04:16 PM.
                        2801 3147 6749 8779 4900 4900 4900

                        Keep eye on ball.
                        Hashim Khan


                        It's just a box of rain, I don't know who put it there.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Embrittlement, particularly hydrogen embrittlement is indeed a factor in stress assisted corrosion, which is why I raised the question. Stress assisted corrosion occurs primarily in environments where heat is a factor as well as low pH and high dissolved oxygen, such as boilers and heat exchangers. It requires a finite amount of time to wreak its havoc. None of these conditions exist in the normal application of Evaporust.

                          Since the Evaporust rep says no, I will base my assessment on that rather than the PM poster, who essentially gave no reason for the failure other than the springs had failed. They probably were previously corroded to the point that failure was inevitable. We have no idea of the condition of the springs prior to use of Evaporust, so no validity can be applied to any statement that Evaporust caused their failure.
                          Jim H.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Please note, I am not bashing ER... A question had come up, and everyone said they never saw a problem. Well, there is a case where some apparently good, functional, items were found to be broken when removed from Evaporust.

                            I brought it up as a caution, that the "totally harmless" material might, in some cases, have bad effects, similar to other materials which are normally "safe" and non-damaging to steel.

                            Many folks use ER and have evidently had very good results. The material works, and according to other posters, it is possible to get it cheaper than the sources I have seen. There is no reason not to use it, and every reason TO use it, if you have access to it at the low costs mentioned.

                            I WOULD like to see the footnotes on your statement that appears to attach embrittlement as a major factor in ALL stress corrosion, AND appears to say that it is limited to slow activity at high temperatures.

                            Everything I know about it or have seen occur and have researched, indicates that it can proceed rapidly, and that it can occur in conditions that normally have no deleterious effect on the metal. While boilers are ONE case, that is by no means the only environment in which SCC can occur. In apparent* cases I have personally observed with phosphoric, it took only a short time of a couple hours, and occurred at normal basement temperatures. That goes against your statements.

                            Here is a short article that indicates SCC is a phenomenon that occurs in specific alloy/environment/stress situations. Heat and boilers is not mentioned, nor is embrittlement, although examples involving chlorides are given. It is not asserted that chlorides are the only cause, and at least one if the examples is clearly from a temperature humans can live in, not boiler temperature.

                            https://www.nace.org/Corrosion-Centr...racking-(SCC)/

                            This second reference (a portion of a longer document) mentions that a very large number and type of different environments can cause SCC. A table of some known environments and materials is given, but is disclaimed as not excluding others.

                            It seems foolish to make a positive statement that any particular environment that has a chemical effect on steel CANNOT cause SCC. ER, and other de-rusting materials clearly have an effect on steel, and cannot therefore be stated to be incapable of causing SCC.

                            https://www.asminternational.org/doc...0-1fca83b87157

                            And, if no validity can be (by you) "applied" to the statement by the PM poster, then it would appear that likewise even less validity can be given to your dismissal of it, which seems to be based on an assumption that the items were previously corroded through, an assumption that in turn seems to be based only on your personal opinion that corrosion in ER could never happen. There is no data to support your assumption, other than the response by a company rep which actually appears to "pivot away from" the actual issue, if that gentleman is even aware of SCC.

                            If it comes to assumptions, I assume that the company has never TESTED to see if SCC can occur in ER. Why should they? There is no reason they should, the product does what they claim it does, by and large.

                            The PM poster at least had observations to go on, essentially an experimental result (however inadvertent) that suggests a line of inquiry, and suggests that some caution is advisable in using ANY derusting material, INCLUDING Evaporust.

                            * Apparent, because the two cases I personally saw involved exactly the sort of material that is susceptible, material with either externally applied or internal stresses (a caliper spring holding parts, and case hardened parts), and the results and environment were just the sort of thing described in the literature.
                            Last edited by J Tiers; 11-06-2017, 08:42 PM.
                            2801 3147 6749 8779 4900 4900 4900

                            Keep eye on ball.
                            Hashim Khan


                            It's just a box of rain, I don't know who put it there.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Arcane View Post
                              Particles of carbon in the rust makes sense since iron oxide itself is carbon free, but you're right! The carbon that was in the steel that rusts will be left over and that is what makes the black coating. My apologies, Sir!
                              Particles of carbon? Just how much carbon do you think is in steel? The black is a ferric compound and that's what makes it black. It's the same process using the electrolytic method--Conversion of iron oxide. The black has nothing to do with carbon.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                well... That's not what ER web site says... and the "black" stuff wipes off unlike that when produced by electrolysis. I notice big difference in the "smut" from low carbon to high carbon steels.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X