Dan I will post more later. But read this.
[quote]As vehicles travel down a street or highway after LMC has been applied direct contact with the LMC has little or no effect. However, once the LMC is airborne and becomes mixed with air caused by the vehicle splash effect. LMC changes on a chemical level and this chemical vapor becomes corrosive to literally every metal it comes in contact with, this type of corrosion is called â€œgalvanic corrosionâ€.
On vehicles LMC vapors affects the electrical systems, brakes systems, corrodes and dulls paint. The LMC vapor is attracted to most metal surfaces, and as corrosion begins the â€œbattery effectâ€ takes place. The corrosion created by the metal and LMC, causes small electrical impulses similar to a battery. The more your vehicle is exposed the more LMC is attracted to these corroding locations. The stronger the electrical impulses become, the more it affects the electrical system and performance of your vehicle. Your brake system relies heavily on the metal surfaces to stop your car. The LMC vapor can penetrate your brake systems and can cause catastrophic brake failure. One of the best kept secrets of automotive paint is that it contains small particles of metal to help it bond to the metal on the vehicle. The LMC vapors can even detect the small particles of metal in your automotive paint. This is the reason why your vehicleâ€™s paint is the dulling, cracking and will eventually corrode the paint completely.
Robert, you are correct.
I would like to elaborate on this. During weather events with these chemicals on the road, a condition that I have called a "corrosion corridor" develops. With vehicles whipping down the road like herd of wildebeast in single file a tunnel of altered atmosphere is created by each vehicle picking up the water and chemical mix and churning it into a vapor. This enables this stuff to get into every nook and cranny of the vehicle, and I mean everywhere. I have seen corrosion in places that are not normally subjected to roadspray.
I have written about this before and have said before that this is causing the average motorist a property loss, the only question is how to quantify it, what is a realistic number. Gillig Bus, a manufacturer of commercial buses on the west coast where they don't use all these de-icers did a study and warned purchasers of their units that in areas of the country where their product is used in this corrosive environment they can expect a service life that is cut by up to third. That in simple terms means that if average service life of one of their buses is 15 years than in the most heavily de-iced areas of the country then that service life can be as short as 5 years.
[quote="Robert"]Attic Owl, people see the state and municipalities spreading liquid on the roads and they assume it is liquid salt. What it actually is, is calcium chloride or magnesium chloride mixed with sugar or syrup, making a very sticky mixture. The theory is, it sticks to the roads and provides continued protection long after the storm.
This mixture soaks into the roads and keeps the roads wet and sticky for days after the storm. Ever notice on a humid July or August night, the roads seem wet and sticky? [/quote]
You got my interest about the sugar/syrup comment so I contacted the manufacturer of the product that is used by the DOT. It does contain a "sugar", but it's purpose is to serve as a corrosion inhibitor. They claim it protects metal surfaces from the chlorides. Interesting stuff, any chemists on AMG that explain the corrosion protection mechanism here?
Sounds like we need a Chemical Engineer who specializes in metalurgy (sp?). :?
Magnesium Chloride as a De-Icing Agent
A number of state highway departments throughout the country have decreased the use of rock salt and sand on roadways and have increased the use of liquid magnesium chloride as a de-icer or anti-icer. The liquid magnesium chloride is sprayed on dry pavement prior to precipitation or wet pavement prior to freezing temperatures in the winter months to prevent snow and ice from adhering and bonding to the roadway. The application of anti-icers is utilized in an effort to improve highway safety. The use of this product seems to show an improvement in driving conditions during and after freezing precipitation yet it seems to be negatively affecting electric utilities.
Two main issues have been raised regarding the anti-icer magnesium chloride as it relates to electric utilities: contamination of insulators causing tracking and arcing across them, and corrosion of steel and aluminum poles and pole hardware.
The first issue in regard to magnesium chloride relates to the possible increase of outages and pole fires due to tracking and arcing across insulators. There are three cooperatives in Colorado that have seen an increase in outages and pole top fires that have been attributed to insulators becoming coated with magnesium chloride. The insulators become coated as vehicle traffic churns up the magnesium chloride into a fine mist that rises and settles on the pole hardware and insulators. As the solution builds up on the insulators the probability of tracking and arcing increases. An additional safety concern that borrowers should watch for is the possible effects on buckets and booms coated with this material as they may loose their dielectric integrity. Rain assists in removing some of the buildup but utilities have been forced to inspect and clean insulators with a soap and water mixture in certain areas where heavy buildup has occurred. This same inspection and cleaning method may be required for buckets and booms that have been exposed to the magnesium chloride anti-icer.
This is a costly and time-consuming process. In the March 23, 2001, issue of Electric Co-op Today, Jerry Lipson's article "New Winter Road Salt 'Burns' Colorado Co-op Lines" addresses this issue. In an effort to determine whether other cooperatives are experiencing similar problems, RUS asks borrowers to let RUS know whether they have any evidence of increased outages or pole fires in proximity to highways in areas where magnesium chloride is used.
The second issue, corrosion, may also be of concern to cooperatives. In the past, sodium chloride (rock salt) has been used as a de-icer and is known to be a corrosive product. Magnesium chloride is also known as a corrosive agent, but when utilized as a de-icer, other chemical agents are added to reduce and minimize this potential, but the corrosive attributes cannot totally be removed. State Highway departments indicate that they are seeing less evidence of corrosion to their trucks and equipment as well as the steel reinforcing bars inside concrete on roads and bridges when the magnesium chloride de-icer is used in comparison to sodium chloride. A concern still remains on its reaction with aluminum and galvanized steel poles, metal hardware and conductors. There has been some feedback from truckers stating that aluminum components and electrical systems in their vehicles are showing an increased corrosion rate. In an effort to determine whether the magnesium chloride de-icer is creating corrosion problems on electrical equipment, RUS is requesting assistance by asking cooperatives to identifying whether any evidence of corrosion on electrical equipment used in proximity to highways is apparent in areas where this product is used. The amount of corrosion may depend upon the type of anti-corrosive agents added to the magnesium chloride de-icer as well as the chemical reaction to the material utilized by electric utilities.
RUS is requesting any information and experiences that the cooperative can share in regard to magnesium chloride and its effects upon their electric systems. If you have any information to share, would like more information or have any questions, please send the information or contact John Pavek, Chief, Distribution Branch, at 202-720-5082 or email@example.com.
[url=http://www.landlinemag.com/Archives/2005/Mar05/modern_trucking/corrosion... crisis of corrosion
Todayâ€™s newer ice-melting chemicals taking premature toll on equipment
[url=http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=56835]More on corrosion[/url]
Vehicle inspection bill is weakened
Friday, March 21, 2008
AUGUSTA (AP) - A bill that would have doubled the time between required safety inspections for Maine cars and noncommercial trucks is being weakened in the Legislature.
The House voted 100 to 41 Thursday to leave the current once-a-year inspection requirement intact.
However, lawmakers are allowing an exception for new cars inspected at the time of purchase.
I get so tired of hearing about this corrosion bull I could hurl. 25 years ago if you had a 7 year old truck that didnâ€™t have a hole rusted through the floor board you could stick you foot through and at least half the brake lines replaced you were doing good. Today I have a 7 year old truck that looks like it just came off the assembly line at ford underneath.
You want to test corrosion under a car and what causes it? Buy two new cars ,drive one and park the other beside your house in the yard for the next two years and you will see corrosion alright but not on the car your driving. The one in the yard exhaust system will rot off ,the break lines will practically rust off and talk about frame rust! Your brake rotors will rust so bad theyâ€™ll have to be replaced and the list goes on and on WITHOUT one speck of salt or sodium chloride or anything else coming anywhere near it while the car you drove for two years in all conditions including what they put on the roads today will look bran new underneath.
This stuff finds metal in your paint and causes fading?????? Anyone want to bet which causes more damage to your cars finish ,sodium chloride or that big round yellow ball that floats around in the sky every day. Iâ€™m betting itâ€™s the yellow ball. We have it far better today then 25 years ago as far as corrosion and repairs on our cars are concerned and we sure donâ€™t need another government agency spending more of our tax money on â€œresearchâ€ for something as stupid as this. :roll:
I have not had a car inspected in over 7 years. My cars are all in excellent shape. I don't need a State to be my Nanny. The reason for the long periods of time is my cars are registered in my home state (military issus) and as long as car is out of state I have no inspection requirement.
Now for the record, the last time I went this long between inspection on a single car I owned, it passed with flying colors.
Of course inspection probably raise revenue for the state so no change will be made. It has little to do with safety.
[quote="Rickie Keim"]I get so tired of hearing about this corrosion bull I could hurl. :roll:[/quote]
Let's meet up Richie. I will show you first hand. :D
[quote="Mike_in_Maine"] The reason for the long periods of time is my cars are registered in my home state (military issus) and as long as car is out of state I have no inspection requirement.[/quote]
That is not true. If the car is in the state for an extended period, it needs a sticker for that state. All vehicles on a military reservation need a sticker for the state it is in or the state of registration.
[quote]That is not true. If the car is in the state for an extended period, it needs a sticker for that state. All vehicles on a military reservation need a sticker for the state it is in or the state of registration.[/quote]
Not since the mid-90's and it started in Maine when to Navy Officers', one JAG, challenged tickets for failing to have state inspection stickers and used the Soldier Sailor Relief Act (since changed and updated) as grounds for defense and won.
One subsequently got stationed in VA and he did the same thing. You have to follow the rules of the State your car is registered in. Most waive inspection requirement if not in State. The cynic in me says they don't care because they can't get the money.
ROFLMAO...great, even the Feds find a way around the good old state of ME...
You can't make this stuff up! :roll:
Mike_in_Maine, can you provide the case. I can't find anything in a search. All I come up with is the military requirement that one must follow all laws of the host state.
When stationed in VA, my truck was registered in Maine, I needed to get a VA sticker. If I refused, I was not allowed to bring the vehicle on base.
Not sure of the case name, but it is the reason that Maine State Inspection sticker no longer needed to get a DOD decal at NAS Brunswick. Also, my last tour in Norfolk was in 2003 and changes already in effect. I had no requirement to get my Florida registered car inspected, in fact all the old inspection sites that where on Hampton BLVD were gone.
Latest change to all this is the U.S. Air Force has gotten out of DOD decal business all together. They no longer issue them, ID card is all that is required and the Navy has not adopted this policy, making it very painful for AF personnel to access Navy bases for TDY.
Effort to reduce inspections rejected
Thursday, March 27, 2008
AUGUSTA (AP) - It appears that a bill that would have doubled the time between required safety inspections for Maine cars and noncommercial trucks will not pass.
The House on Wednesday rejected the bill, which had already been weakened to limit the two-year inspections to new vehicles only. But lawmakers found out that even that change would jeopardize federal transportation funding to the state.
Can someone explain why we would lose federal transportation funding when 2/3 of the states do not have an annual safety inspection? Do they lose their funding? I think we are being lied to once again!
[quote]Why not compromise? Have it every 2 years until the vehicle is--say 6 years old and from then on annually. I know this is too much of a "Nanny" state to do away with inspections entirely. I remember how much of a P.I.A. the twice-a-year inspections were. Too make it worse everyone's was the same--April and October.[/quote]
Dennis is right. New cars - every 2 years and then annually. AND all new cars should leave the showroom with a FREE sticker. The sales tax should cover it.
Strange appearance of logic in Augusta. The legiscritters are again looking at the dumb vehicle inspection laws. Here is a quote from the article linked below:
"One issue regarding inspections is their reliability. A study done to assess Pennsylvania’s periodic inspection program found that inspections are not that reliable. The researchers conducted an experiment where a 1969 Chevrolet Bel-Air was brought to various garages with 13 defects intentionally created to evaluate the detection rate of real defects and nonexistent ones. In the study, the highest rate of detection for real defects was 54 percent and the average was about 37 percent. Additionally, inspection agents found, on average, 5 of 13 real defects but also “found” 2 nonexistent defects.""Not only does this show unreliability, it makes you question if you really trust your mechanic."Inspections
I've never had good luck with inspections. None of the serious issues I've had over the years was ever detected by an inspection, even when that inspection was less than a week prior. They find lots of other expensive issues, but not the ones that matter.
Working out of state a lot, I get a sticker in the state where I am working. In most cases, I have to pass more stuff (emissions) but since I know the mechanics better, I avoid the dishonesty issue.
Maine's requirement for a pass to get to an inspection station is a ridiculous imposition - I never allow the station doing the inspection to do ANY WORK. They know up front from me that I will take it somewhere else for the work, even if it has to be towed. I will not be cheated again. Making it difficult to move the car from home to station and from one station to another makes cheating people easier. Not something I respect.
I have family that live in NJ. A brand new vehicle gets a 5 year inspection sticker. There can always be exceptions, but that seems like a good start to me.
Yep, that is government's solution. We have a law, about which no studies or evidence has ever been shown to be effective, encourages fraud, does nothing to help the citizens, is nothing but a "feel good" measure and the dorks in charge say ....well lets just enforce this stupid law every other year instead of every year.
Shouldn't we be turning back cars from states without inspections at the border? Think of the children!!!
WA doesn't have any except 2 (I think) counties have smog checks. I can drive inter-county without fear of arrest. WA instead chooses to persecute drivers by not using salt on their roads.
...not using salt on their roads.
And that's the key to this whole issue. Maine must keep at least 2-year inspections for the safety of people on the roads.
The speed with which rust attacks a vehicle is mind-boggling.
Michigan uses salt on their roads like they were potato chips and they do not have safety inspections and nobody knows if they have more, fewer or the same number of accidents caused by mechanical problems.
I bet the auto insurance companies know. Funny how those things become important when it's YOUR money on the line.knowing