Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Global Cost of Corrosion

impact.nace.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 251 posts

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#151

Post by Blackthorn »

nradov wrote: post #56
hristov wrote: post #8

This is an important issue. People keep talking about recycling, but much more important than recycling is just being able to use a thing for longer before you are even thinking about recycling it. Japanese automakers did the world a great favor when in the 80s and 90s they made much longer lasting cars and made longevity and resale value an important consideration in the purchasing decision. They did this mostly by…

Toyota has had a serious problem with truck frames rusting. https://www.autoblog.com/2016/11/14/toyota-3-billion-settlem...

You can and should fix this yourself if you own one. Spray cosmoline or fluid film on the frame. Cosmoline is perfect because you can pressure wash the dirt off but it won't disturb the cosmoline film.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#152

Post by kube-system »

bliteben wrote: post #131
ElectricalUnion wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Almost all metals oxidize. > The U.S. navy does have some very large aluminum ships Unfortunately aluminum also rusts, it just happens to be a chemically stable and resistant rusting - but not in a stable enough manner to be mechanically/abrasive resistant, that's why you don't see them deployed in widespread use at stressing conditions like internal combustion engine blocks or fast ship hulls. From said cited Wiki…

sorry I annoyed you. I thought I covered both in my post. Feels like you have to walk on egg shells around here least someone correct you.

> least someone correct you.

lest someone correct you.

...Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#153

Post by goodluckchuck »

elmomle wrote: post #101
kreeben wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toyotas cost nothing compared to Porches, so 1-0 Japan vs rest of the world.

Unless you happen to think that reduced car ownership is good for the world!

Or, even better for the environment , we could kill all of human civilization! /s

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#154

Post by lbrindze »

algo_trader wrote: post #123
jacquesm wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that you want to last in sea water? How long? Under what kind of load?

Well, the payload has a 20 year life time. Solar panels, navigational lights, etc. Hopefully very little physical contact with other man made objects. A decade of sea life before some sort of land refurbishment would be a nice value for the excel.

most objects like this I have passed in the water seem to be made of some sort of painted steel. I think this is a good combination of durability vs economical. I suspect your electronics will go long before anything corrodes away to nothing, since in my experience its always the electronics that fail first (even when properly sealed for marine use).

Note that the main issue with any barrier coating (assuming there are no collisions) is going to be due to sea life living on/underneath your object and slowly breaking down the material. A copper based metal (read bronze) could be interesting (but expensive) since it tends to stand up fairly well in marine environments and has biocidal properties that prevent fouling/growth. Also very clear to visually inspect since green means good and red means bad which I always thought was very easy to remember.

edit: re-reading your initial comment it looks like you are describing an autonomous vessel of some sort. I used to work at a company that produced such devices and they were made out of composite plastics (which have their own issues that cause them to break down eventually in the water as well).

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#155

Post by _yb2s »

jacquesm wrote: post #14
hristov wrote: post #8

This is an important issue. People keep talking about recycling, but much more important than recycling is just being able to use a thing for longer before you are even thinking about recycling it. Japanese automakers did the world a great favor when in the 80s and 90s they made much longer lasting cars and made longevity and resale value an important consideration in the purchasing decision. They did this mostly by…

Volvo led the way in this long before Japan got even close to figuring this out. That's why you still see ancient Volvo's drive around in numbers that are just way higher than any other brand.

I came here to mention this about Volvos. Starting with the 7xx series (1982 on) they have been virtually rustproof. Old 7xx volvos are crazy cheap because they last forever, and there just isn't enough demand for the huge numbers of them still around...

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#156

Post by _yb2s »

kqr wrote: post #36
jacquesm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Volvo led the way in this long before Japan got even close to figuring this out. That's why you still see ancient Volvo's drive around in numbers that are just way higher than any other brand.

I got the impression Volvo was able to do this for fairly small production runs, whereas the Japanese figured out how to consistently do it in large volumes.

I'd say the Japanese figured out how to make this happen on a cheap car. Almost all high end european cars (including Volvos) had great rustproofing for a long time but cost far more than Japanese cars. The Japanese made the first reliable and long lasting low priced cars.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#157

Post by josephcsible »

wongarsu wrote: post #42
mattkrause wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those microbes require very specific conditions: precise pH and osmolarity, high temperature (50-70˚C), long contact times, feedstock that's been literally pulverized, etc. These probably aren't going to occur anywhere outside of a bioreactor, so our action figures are likely safe...for now!

With time evolution will widen the conditions, with how much plastic is in the environment. But wood and paper are also readily biodegrade, and yet by simply by controlling the amount of moisture present we manage to make those last a long, long time. In addition we have treatment options to delay decomposition even in wet conditions.

But right now there's a lot of places that we explicitly choose to use plastic and not wood, because it's somewhere that wood would degrade.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#158

Post by jopsen »

JohnBooty wrote: post #112
Arrath wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cost, primarily. I'm not certain but I believe joins and welds also need further attention to ensure the corrosion protection isn't impaired. Anyway, O&M is the problem for the guy trying to get the next decade's budget approved so if the upkeep is more expensive, hey at least I got this thing built.

Anyway, O&M is the problem for the guy trying to get the next decade's budget approved This is why democracy, while far better than the alternatives, still absolutely sucks. It's a system explicitly designed to be short-sighted. There is massive disincentive to produce systems and infrastructure that will actually work some distance into the future. The only incentive for politicians is either (a) merely look like th…

> ...democracy... It's a system explicitly designed to be short-sighted.

It's not explicitly designed for that. It's designed to avoid concentration and abuse of power, peaceful transition of power, and to create some level of fairness.

Democracy wasn't designed to produce the best society or the most wealthy society.

Democracy was designed to avoid dictators/kings and other really bad things :)

That said, we often seem to think that we can optimize for something beyond the short term. It's a seductive thought. But experience with communism/central-planning, suggests that maybe it's best to optimize for the short term. At least that works, and produces results in the meantime.

It's the same with waterfall software development vs agile software development. Optimizing for the short term and iterating is usually better than to try and plan the future top-down.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#159

Post by algo_trader »

lbrindze wrote: post #154
algo_trader wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the payload has a 20 year life time. Solar panels, navigational lights, etc. Hopefully very little physical contact with other man made objects. A decade of sea life before some sort of land refurbishment would be a nice value for the excel.

most objects like this I have passed in the water seem to be made of some sort of painted steel. I think this is a good combination of durability vs economical. I suspect your electronics will go long before anything corrodes away to nothing, since in my experience its always the electronics that fail first (even when properly sealed for marine use). Note that the main issue with any barrier coating (assuming there a…

> autonomous vessel of some sort.

Actually just a large floating shed to support all those panels.

But yeah, there are multiple moving pieces (floating?!) involved.

Would love to chat in the future and brain storm, if u want to leave your details in my profile puppet mail.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#160

Post by ozim »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #32
jtlienwis wrote: post #4

The environmentalists killed a zinc mine in my state due to pollution concerns. Of course every pound of zinc not mined meant more steel without zinc protection, and hence more rust and more mining of iron ore. Arguments like this were completely lost on them.

So you mean that the mine should be allowed to pollute so long as the pollution is offset elsewhere?

Well yes - maybe not offset.

But if mining zinc lowers pollution from other stuff then yes.

Post reply on HN