Corrosion X

[jetdriven]

The factory DOES recommend it but to not overdo it! More of it doesn't work better. Serves no purpose to soak the insides of the airplane every year with corrosion x or similar.

It does not offer any benefit to chromated surfaces. It only seeks and protects bare metal, eg. in lap joints.

A classic case of "less is more."

(Unlike Chris' cows...I meant...women! That's a healthy case of "more is well...way way more!")

Just exactly where is the factory's recommendation of Corrosion-X? I cannot find it.

[jetdriven]

Seems like it would be easy enough to demonstrate. Take a few sheets of various metals and coat some with corrosion x and leave others bare. Stick them in various environments and compare them to each other after a certain length of time.

They demonstrated this several times with Camguard, yet PTK insists its a scam, a marketing hype with no solid evidence it works.

 

I say the same thing for Corrosion-X, no conclusive proof it works.  No double-blind peer-reviewed studies and no ten year 200 airplane study. Yet somehow he endorses it, But I fail to see the difference between the two.

[MyNameIsNobody]

It's based on solid chemistry.

It is a dielectric material. If you remember your high school chemistry this means it is an insulating material. A very poor conductor of electricity. Metals are the opposite due to loosely bound or free electrons in their outer shells that can travel among atoms.

Corrosion is the transfer of electrons by an electrolyte.

Corroson X or similar seeks bare metal through polar bonding. Again from high school chem, this means it attaches to bare metal like a magnet displacing the electrolyte eg. moisture, and stopping electron transfer via its dielectric nature.

It stops the conduction of electrons which is what corrosion is. Again from high school chem!

Show me similarly based proof for your scamguard!

You crack me up.

Which way is the wind blowing today?

[Marauder]

You crack me up.

Which way is the wind blowing today?

Peter Garmin says it always blows towards Olathe Kansas... And away from Tulsa Oklahoma (home of CamGuard).

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PTK]

They demonstrated this several times with Camguard, yet PTK insists its a scam, a marketing hype with no solid evidence it works.

I say the same thing for Corrosion-X, no conclusive proof it works. No double-blind peer-reviewed studies and no ten year 200 airplane study. Yet somehow he endorses it, But I fail to see the difference between the two.

Byron, what exactly has been demonstrated several times with camguard?

Here's the difference.

Corrosion X chemically bonds to metal forming a thin film between the metal and the environment. This thin film protects the metal by not allowing the environment to penetrate. This is based on sound chemistry. The bond is permanent and lasts a long time. It will degrade over time and needs to be reapplied.

Are there similar chemical principles at work for camguard? How does it work? Is it a chemical interaction between it and metal in the engine or does it simply coat the metal?

[aviatoreb]

Ok folks - harassing our harassing friend Peter aside.

 

I have been thinking about corrosion-X sometimes.  My airplane has never been treated with corrosion-X during the 5 years I have owned it - for no particular reason - habit.  Luckily I am in a dry hangar in a reasonably dry area.  But in the long run, maybe its something I should do I have been thinking.

 

I am curious how many folks are corrosion-X die-hards.  A poll?

[DonMuncy]

Erik,

I am a theoretical corrosion X advocate, but like you, have not gotten around to having my plane done yet. I need to get a fine enough tip for my sprayer to make a mist, and the motivation to get the job done. I would like to hear from the guys who have done it themselves to get the particulars about how many panels they removed, how they knew how much to use, how much it actually took and other details I haven't thought about.

[carusoam]

Stored outdoors for a decade. CorrosionX on every surface.

It's power to penetrate is impressive. It can seep out of rivets in the top of the wing. It looks like smoking rivets after the X treatment for a while...

Not considering using it as an oil additive, yet...

Corrosion would pop up in places as the paint got weaker with time. The X won't help with that either...

Worst corrosion found... Areas under the rug, in the back seat on and around an import structure.

Expect 'cola damaged spar' to be the title of that thread. good reason to give up the soda habit after that...

My C lived a hard life.

The O, lives indoors. The kids don't drink or spill sodas anymore...

Best regards,

-a-

[garytex]

I think corrosion X works exceptionally well. This is based on 20 years experience using it in salty wet boat engine compartments. Works great on busbars, electrical connections, all those spots on the engines where the paint is knocked off. We typically salt away the engines and really get after them with corrosion X once a year, and then touch it up about halfway through.

[garytex]

Since a lot of this is high carbon steel and it's a salty wet environment the spots that we missed are very easy to see, they've got fresh bright rust on them. Corrosion X is absolutely the only way to keep boat trailers from rusting away to nothing. corrosion X is absolutely the only way to keep boat trailers from rusting away to nothing. That stuff really works.

[garytex]

The only downside is that it is very gorpy, impossible to atomize out of the factory can, and very difficult to get a thin even coat. For the airplane I would pick ACF 50 or Boshield for owner applied. it may be that with the purpose built atomizers that corrosion X could beapplied thin enough.

[Alan Fox]

Shame on all of you , Peter Garmin did a double blind study of corrosion X on his patients amalgum fillings , and guess what ...... They all went blind......I guess it works....    Back to the original post ,  Lancaster Aero is doing a treatment on one of my Beeches this week ....  Lets see what they charge.....

[1TJ]

Byron, what exactly has been demonstrated several times with camguard?

Here's the difference.

Corrosion X chemically bonds to metal forming a thin film between the metal and the environment. This thin film protects the metal by not allowing the environment to penetrate. This is based on sound chemistry. The bond is permanent and lasts a long time. It will degrade over time and needs to be reapplied.

Are there similar chemical principles at work for camguard? How does it work? Is it a chemical interaction between it and metal in the engine or does it simply coat the metal?

I am the chemist that developed CorrosionX Aviation. I formulated it to meet Mil-C-81309E. The same polar bonding, high dielectric constant chemistry is in Camguard albeit at a lower concentration for motor oil compatibility. I tested Camguard for corrosion inhibiting capabilities in an analogous fashion to testing CorrosionX. However, I did it under conditions based on ASTM D6557 (Bal Rust Test) ulilized by the automotive oil developers for obvious reasons.

 

Ed    

[jetdriven]

Thanks, Ed. Now let's hear Peter explain how he can hold two simultaneous, opposing ideals in his head for us. Because I know he has positively jumped all over you about Camguard, now let's hear how and why he likes corrosion-x so much.

[mooniac15u]

I am the chemist that developed CorrosionX Aviation. I formulated it to meet Mil-C-81309E. The same polar bonding, high dielectric constant chemistry is in Camguard albeit at a lower concentration for motor oil compatibility. I tested Camguard for corrosion inhibiting capabilities in an analogous fashion to testing CorrosionX. However, I did it under conditions based on ASTM D6557 (Bal Rust Test) ulilized by the automotive oil developers for obvious reasons.

 

Ed    

 

When you say "polar bonding" I assume you are refering to some kind of intermolecular electrostatic interaction (e.g. dipole-dipole) as opposed to actual chemical bonding.

[1TJ]

When you say "polar bonding" I assume you are refering to some kind of intermolecular electrostatic interaction (e.g. dipole-dipole) as opposed to actual chemical bonding.

Yes.

[PTK]

This is good info Ed. Thank you for sharing.

 

I had no idea the chemistry was similar between camguard and corrosion x. I've never seen this in camguard's literature.

 

Life inside the engine obviously presents very different challenges than outside but I had no idea they shared common chemistry. 

 

Does it work as well as corrosion x?

[jetdriven]

So then, PTK, Corrosion-X is the same scam and marketing hype as Camguard? By your definition, it is.. Let's hear the breakdown of why you think one works and one is a scam.

And oh the shock that the same guy, Ed Kollin, who you had a serious hard-on for over at Beechtalk for ripping off consumers is suddenly behind your favorite snake oil du-jour.

[garytex]

There's a different formulation for airplanes than the standard issue corrosion x we buy at the boat store?

[1TJ]

When you say "polar bonding" I assume you are refering to some kind of intermolecular electrostatic interaction (e.g. dipole-dipole) as opposed to actual chemical bonding.

 

Here is a link to a Camguard video describing the monomolecular film formation/polar bonding of corrosion inhibitors such as Camguard and CorrosionX.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwLugqd6FEj9bHZQLWpFcy1UMW8/view?usp=sharing

 

Ed

[1TJ]

There's a different formulation for airplanes than the standard issue corrosion x we buy at the boat store?

There is a difference between the CX Aviation (Blue label) and the original (Red label). The Aviation had to be formulated to meet the more severe conditions of the revised Mil spec.

 

Ed

[mike_elliott]

I am the chemist that developed CorrosionX Aviation. I formulated it to meet Mil-C-81309E. The same polar bonding, high dielectric constant chemistry is in Camguard albeit at a lower concentration for motor oil compatibility. I tested Camguard for corrosion inhibiting capabilities in an analogous fashion to testing CorrosionX. However, I did it under conditions based on ASTM D6557 (Bal Rust Test) ulilized by the automotive oil developers for obvious reasons.

 

Ed    

Ed Kollin will be presenting a seminar on lubrication at the Mooney Summit . We really look forward to him sharing his expertise and learning. This will be far from an infomercial, but rather a real expert answering real world questions we all have. He has donated some Camguard to be given away as a door prize to some lucky attendee. Peter, if you have registered to come, (I don't know who is and isn't, I don't have control of the data) I trust you will try to be polite and professional, and not as antagonistic as you are on this board.

[Marauder]

Ed Kollin will be presenting a seminar on lubrication at the Mooney Summit . We really look forward to him sharing his expertise and learning. This will be far from an infomercial, but rather a real expert answering real world questions we all have. He has donated some Camguard to be given away as a door prize to some lucky attendee. Peter, if you have registered to come, (I don't know who is and isn't, I don't have control of the data) I trust you will try to be polite and professional, and not as antagonistic as you are on this board.

Any chance we can get a small mosh pit there and have Ed and Peter Garmin do some moshing? For you less informed folks: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshing

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mike_elliott]

Any chance we can get a small mosh pit there and have Ed and Peter Garmin do some moshing? For you less informed folks: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshing

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

People attending the Mooney Summit hold themselves, and will be held to far higher standards of course. I am sure Peter is a polite, kind, compassionate sentient human who wouldn't tolerate less in person also. The weakness of asynchronous comm is you can posture an alter ego and be a troll. 

Don't wrestle with a pig, you will only get dirty and the pig will enjoy it.

[Marauder]

People attending the Mooney Summit hold themselves, and will be held to far higher standards of course. I am sure Peter is a polite, kind, compassionate sentient human who wouldn't tolerate less in person also. The weakness of asynchronous comm is you can posture an alter ego and be a troll.

Don't wrestle with a pig, you will only get dirty and the pig will enjoy it.

Oink oink

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk