Corrosion Protection Test

Started by Marcq, April 13, 2015, 05:05:13 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Marcq

April 13, 2015, 05:05:13 AM

alantani

#1
April 13, 2015, 05:29:31 AM
Very impressive work.  The US secret service apparently uses aerosol tsi 321. I would love to have seen that product evaluated as well.
send me an email at alantani@yahoo.com for questions!

steelfish

#2
April 13, 2015, 02:22:06 PM
Wow.. great investigation
The Baja Guy

LTM

#3
April 13, 2015, 08:03:33 PM
Quote from: alantani on April 13, 2015, 05:29:31 AM
Very impressive work.  The US secret service apparently uses aerosol tsi 321. I would love to have seen that product evaluated as well.

X2

Leo

Alto Mare

#4
April 13, 2015, 08:57:46 PM
Very impressive indeed, that was a lot of wok.
Forget about all the reasons why something may not work. You only need to find one good reason why it will.

Slazmo

#5
April 13, 2015, 09:57:02 PM
Great visual test of said products, has certainly changed my perspectives on some of the products; especially the WD-40 Specialist...

Most if not all are not available to us here in Australia unfortunately.

Anyhow I'll just have to stick with Inox... So far so good - wonder how that would have fared in his tests???

Dominick

#6
April 13, 2015, 10:57:48 PM
Good job on the experiments.  For our purposes (at least for us salt water fishers) there were 23 different products that looked like it did a good job in salt water.  Dominick
Leave the gun.  Take the cannolis.

There are two things I don't like about fishing.  Getting up early in the morning and boats.  The rest of it is fun.

Clipper

#7
June 03, 2015, 12:38:07 AM
Nothing like research to set the record straight.  Thanks for sharing this important article.
Another day in Paradise!

retrofit

#8
June 03, 2015, 03:28:10 AM
That was well done. Now if someone on this site can figure out how to do a bearing time of spin test for each of these products???  ::)

johndtuttle

#9
June 03, 2015, 08:34:33 PM Last Edit: June 04, 2015, 05:27:19 PM by johndtuttle
Certainly interesting information...for gun owners.  :)

What I mean to say, is that the coating of static surfaces with a corrosion-inhibitor is one thing, the protection of say, bearings, that are moving  parts in contact are another let alone inside surfaces where we can use products that are unacceptable to wipe the outside of a gun down.

Just as the speed of a given lube is just one quality that is useful to us, in balance with how long it lasts once applied.

Example from the test would be standard WD-40 which was very slick in the tests...but we well know has poor qualities over time as it turns to varnish and actively gums up parts nor does it's slickness last long. Great protection and fast...but a poor choice for moving parts over time. Possibly though that "turn to varnish" quality is part of what makes it protect so well as it coats surfaces well.

And of course, Marine Bearing grease is what we would use if corrosion protection is the only goal when there is a minimal speed requirement or an inner surface to be protected. I would put my money on it to hold up better for our needs of protection over time than any oil. We have seen it protect for decades every time we open an old reel. Guns do not remotely operate under the harsh conditions of trailer bearings that have been immersed in saltwater. Marine bearing grease protects under the harshest conditions for moving parts.

In a nutshell, the test is very useful if you have an exterior surface that needs to be protected. If you have moving parts that need protection then that is not addressed in the test. The slickness of the oils is tested, but no durability information is provided over time and that also would be most useful for use in fishing reels where we have to lube rapidly moving parts that have many cycles.

Reel 224

#10
June 03, 2015, 08:51:12 PM
Quote from: johndtuttle on June 03, 2015, 08:34:33 PM
Certainly interesting information...for gun owners.  :)

What I mean to say, is that the coating of static surfaces with a corrosion-inhibitor is one thing, the protection of say, bearings, that are moving  parts in contact are another let alone inside surfaces where we can use products that are unacceptable to wipe the outside of a gun down.

Just as the speed of a given lube is just one quality that is useful to us, in balance with how long it lasts once applied.

Example from the test would be standard WD-40 which was very slick in the tests...but we well know has poor qualities over time as it turns to varnish and actively gums up parts. Great protection and fast...but a poor choice for moving parts over time. Possibly though that "turn to varnish" quality is part of what makes it protect so well as it coats surfaces well.

And of course, Marine Bearing grease is what we would use if corrosion protection is the only goal when there is a minimal speed requirement or an inner surface to be protected. I would put my money on it to hold up better for our needs of protection over time than any oil. We have seen it protect for decades every time we open an old reel.

In a nutshell, the test is very useful if you have an exterior surface that needs to be protected. If you have moving parts that need protection then that is not addressed in the test. The slickness of the oils is tested, but no durability information is provided over time and that also would be most useful for use in fishing reels.


I wonder how well Marine grease would work on my knees. ??? ;D The main conditions here are salt and electrolysis, we need a product that is anti corrosive and has good lubricity, something that doesn't break down over time...like we do.
"I don't know the key to success,but the key to failure is trying to please everyone."

Tiddlerbasher

#11
June 03, 2015, 10:02:53 PM
I have found red wine improves with age - my personal choice for internal lubrication ;D ;D

Reel 224

#12
June 03, 2015, 10:57:29 PM
Quote from: Tiddlerbasher on June 03, 2015, 10:02:53 PM
I have found red wine improves with age - my personal choice for internal lubrication ;D ;D

Mine too! ;D
"I don't know the key to success,but the key to failure is trying to please everyone."

Eric Hensel

#13
June 03, 2015, 11:49:19 PM
Excellent points, John.

Quote from: johndtuttle on June 03, 2015, 08:34:33 PM
Certainly interesting information...for gun owners.  :)

What I mean to say, is that the coating of static surfaces with a corrosion-inhibitor is one thing, the protection of say, bearings, that are moving  parts in contact are another let alone inside surfaces where we can use products that are unacceptable to wipe the outside of a gun down.

Just as the speed of a given lube is just one quality that is useful to us, in balance with how long it lasts once applied.

Example from the test would be standard WD-40 which was very slick in the tests...but we well know has poor qualities over time as it turns to varnish and actively gums up parts nor does it's slickness last long. Great protection and fast...but a poor choice for moving parts over time. Possibly though that "turn to varnish" quality is part of what makes it protect so well as it coats surfaces well.

And of course, Marine Bearing grease is what we would use if corrosion protection is the only goal when there is a minimal speed requirement or an inner surface to be protected. I would put my money on it to hold up better for our needs of protection over time than any oil. We have seen it protect for decades every time we open an old reel.

In a nutshell, the test is very useful if you have an exterior surface that needs to be protected. If you have moving parts that need protection then that is not addressed in the test. The slickness of the oils is tested, but no durability information is provided over time and that also would be most useful for use in fishing reels where we have to lube rapidly moving parts that have many cycles.
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions