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

41–50 of 251 posts

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#41

Post by jacquesm »

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.

That may well be so, Japanese cars had an absolutely terrible reputation for being rustbuckets in the 70's so they had to do something about it. Given the number of them that were manufactured the fact that they are so rare today is as far as I know uniquely due to the rust problem.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#42

Post by wongarsu »

mattkrause wrote: post #24
bilsbie wrote: post #6

This is why I get scared when I see articles about people developing plastic eating bacteria. Sure it is great for reducing waste but it’s a dangerous game to be playing for sure.

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.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#43

Post by mlyle »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #13
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…

>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 using better paints and making sure cars and car parts are painted more thoroughly. This is baseless fanboyism. The European carmakers lead the way with various degrees of zinc plating and dipped c…

> The European carmakers lead the way with various degrees of zinc plating and dipped coatings being widely implemented on their products in the 70s and 80s.

Ford developed e-coat in the 50's. Everyone took up this to varying extents during the mid-to-late 70's.

> whereas the Europeans tend to put quite a bit more effort in.

I'm sorry, this just doesn't match my experience looking at mid-80's Japanese, American, and European cars. e.g. Porsche took up galvanizing during the transition from the 911S to the 911SC and further worked to improve coatings leading up to the Carrera 3.2 to attempt to control rust, but 3.2s still fared really poorly in the corrosion department. Ditto for BMWs of the era.

> This is baseless fanboyism.

> Edit: If you want someone to lie to you to confirm your biases that's not gonna be me.

You just made a bunch of unsupported assertions yourself leaning in the opposite direction.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#44

Post by wbsss4412 »

jacquesm wrote: post #39
bradfa wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are modern Volvos still better than average for corrosion resistance?

Somewhere in the late 90's early 2000's car manufacturers switched paint processes, typically to a water based paint. That's the point in time where you could see the most clearly which manufacturers had their house in order in terms of weld cleaning, seam coating, basic material procurement and surface protection. Some of them failed horribly, which led to some brands (for instance: Mercedes) having an undisclosed h…

Volvo is owned by a Chinese parent company, but their operations are still based in the same places as before.

Using the definition implied by your comment, they were previously and “American” car manufacturer as they were sold to geeley by ford.

Edit: absurd typo, it is owned by a Chinese company.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#45

Post by jacquesm »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #44
jacquesm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somewhere in the late 90's early 2000's car manufacturers switched paint processes, typically to a water based paint. That's the point in time where you could see the most clearly which manufacturers had their house in order in terms of weld cleaning, seam coating, basic material procurement and surface protection. Some of them failed horribly, which led to some brands (for instance: Mercedes) having an undisclosed h…

Volvo is owned by a Chinese parent company, but their operations are still based in the same places as before. Using the definition implied by your comment, they were previously and “American” car manufacturer as they were sold to geeley by ford. Edit: absurd typo, it is owned by a Chinese company.

> Volvo is not owned by a Chinese parent company, but their operations are still based in the same places as before.

You are welcome to use your own definition of the word 'owned' but I'll just stick to the dictionary one.

> Using the definition implied by your comment, they were previously and “American” car manufacturer as they were sold to geeley by ford.

https://www.industryweek.com/finance/software-systems/articl...

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#46

Post by Aloha »

mlyle wrote: post #43
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 using better paints and making sure cars and car parts are painted more thoroughly. This is baseless fanboyism. The European carmakers lead the way with various degrees of zinc plating and dipped c…

> The European carmakers lead the way with various degrees of zinc plating and dipped coatings being widely implemented on their products in the 70s and 80s. Ford developed e-coat in the 50's. Everyone took up this to varying extents during the mid-to-late 70's. > whereas the Europeans tend to put quite a bit more effort in. I'm sorry, this just doesn't match my experience looking at mid-80's Japanese, American, and…

I came here to mention E-coat, though I'm thinking of it by another name, it's why in dry climates it's rare to see vintage fords rusted out, GM and Chrysler took longer to implement it.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#47

Post by lbrindze »

jacquesm wrote: post #17
countvonbalzac wrote: post #3

Why aren't bridges and ships made out of stainless steel? Is it too expensive, or not as strong as regular steel?

Stainless steel is not 'rust proof' it is mostly rust retardant, it has a chromium coating that reduces oxidization but does not stop it completely. The more chromium, the better the rust resistant properties. https://www.pennstainless.com/resources/product-information/... Is pretty good stuff and https://www.cralloys.com/alloys/17-chrome/ is possibly better still. If you want (much) better rust resistance than that…

I was not familiar with these grades, very interesting reading and finding out about them. The most common grades of stainless I have encountered in the marine industry is either 316 (best) or 304 (budget, requires regular cleaning to keep rust free). Both have issues with crevice corrosion and are also very expensive compared to zinc-plated equivalents (which I would never use on a boat since they will effectively disintegrate over a few months). Marine grade stainless often suffers from crevice corrosion and hard to detect failures which is sort of terrifying when you really think about it (things look OK until one day they break without clear visible warning).

For bridges or large-scale industrial applications where you dont care how the metal itself appears, I agree that coatings (especially galvanization) is the best bang for the buck. All of my insights are purely anecdotal though, as a hobbyist...

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#48

Post by asimpletune »

I’ve spent years working on a VW bus restoration, and this is something I’ve thought about so much. Once you’ve had to clean up rust you begin to see it everywhere. It’s like having a disease.

Anyways, yeah it would be fantastic if metal just didn’t corrode. That would be one of the greatest gifts to the world.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#49

Post by avar »

ortusdux wrote: post #22
Ekaros wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have heard the same. Actually making rusting proof stuff is very hard. Specially if there is any chance of things like acids being involved. Coatings could help, but even then why not just paint regular steel. Now other thing I wonder is how structurally sound some of the stainless alloys are? Do they have similar characteristics to steels now used?

IIRC, Coated rebar can actually fail faster or in less predictable and therefore worse ways. The coating is often damaged during install, but even perfectly coated bar forms cracks eventually. The entire system's galvanic potential is focused on these small exposed areas, causing extremely fast rusting. The coating tends to fail in higher stress areas, which means that not only does the bar fail, it fails in the wors…

Don't confuse stainless steel with galvanized steel. The latter is just normal steel dipped in melted zinc, once you're past that thin coating it'll rust just like normal steel does.

Stainless steel is an is an alloy, you can saw apart a beam made of stainless 316 and the inside will be just as stainless as the outside.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#50

Post by mattkrause »

jwilk wrote: post #38
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!

FYI, you used an incorrect character for the degree sign. Should be ° U+00B0 DEGREE SIGN, not ˚ U+02DA RING ABOVE.

Hmmmm...it's whatever Option+k does on macOS. I thought it was the degree sign because it doesn't actually combine, but apparently degree is option+shift+8 instead.
Post reply on HN