Best rust converters for surface rust - Page 5 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Body - Exterior
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 05:56 AM
deadbodyman's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last wiki edit: Stripping paint Last photo:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: augusta,ga.
Age: 54
Posts: 6,239
Wiki Edits: 11

Thanks: 28
Thanked 472 Times in 400 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by shine View Post
i have no problem with phosphoric acid . i have used it since the early 70's . but when i switched to epoxy things changed .some cars i blast do not need it others do . i still use it but have to be diligent on how i use it . since the chemistry police are lurking we cant say neutralize any more so i will say rinse thoroughly while still wet . this will avoid any problems with the epoxy . the epoxy will still stick if not rinsed but only at about 60% and a possibility of other problems.
i have started using milkstone since a dairy friend here turned me onto it . the milkstone is 54% phosphoric acid where ospho ,navel jelly and such are around 15-30 % .so it will be cheaper once mixed with water or on bad rust used straight it will work a little better. the stuff the paint mfg sell is weak usually around 5%. good only for cleaning.

and a word of caution , paint mfg are in the business to sell you things whether you need it or not. the last place to seek advice is with a paint rep. follow tech advice but be cautious on product recommendations .

and the only thing you can convert rust to is a different color of rust .
never heard of milkstone ,whats it used for in the dairy biz?

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 07:11 AM
shine's Avatar
SPI Thug
 

Last journal entry: some progress
Last photo:
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: bluff dale texas
Posts: 2,727
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 207 Times in 166 Posts
mike , it's used for cleaning the equipment . mixes 1oz to 6 gals of water for most use. at 12 bucks a gal it is pretty cheap. i looked at it a few years ago . on the gal jug it states 56.33% so it is pretty strong right out of the jug. i dont use it all the time but on some stubborn places it works pretty good . phosphoric acid is pretty weak to start with .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 11:56 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: motorcity
Posts: 240
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 10
Thanked 20 Times in 17 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by shine View Post
Funny the gal says 56% on the lable . But it's only 12 bucks a gal here .

I think that it's always better to look at the tech sheet for a product, because if there is a way that the manufacturer can trick you into believing something that makes the product look better, then they will push the limits of the law to do that.

Before I get into trouble here, I want to say that I am not a chemist. But my understanding is this.

If you look at the label is says that the ingredients of the container are 56.333% phosphoric acid, and the solution of the phosphoric is 75%, so if you multiply 75 by 56.333 it equals the 42.25% by weight that the tech sheet says.
And the Ospho tech sheet does mention that the percentage is by weight at 45%

I took the time to explain what I think to be accurate, because there may be a lesson here about seeing what they want you to see. Always read the tech sheets, to be safer. If someone knows that I am wrong, please correct me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 03:33 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 1,155
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 63
Thanked 104 Times in 88 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevymon View Post
I think that it's always better to look at the tech sheet for a product, because if there is a way that the manufacturer can trick you into believing something that makes the product look better, then they will push the limits of the law to do that.

Before I get into trouble here, I want to say that I am not a chemist. But my understanding is this.

If you look at the label is says that the ingredients of the container are 56.333% phosphoric acid, and the solution of the phosphoric is 75%, so if you multiply 75 by 56.333 it equals the 42.25% by weight that the tech sheet says.
And the Ospho tech sheet does mention that the percentage is by weight at 45%

I took the time to explain what I think to be accurate, because there may be a lesson here about seeing what they want you to see. Always read the tech sheets, to be safer. If someone knows that I am wrong, please correct me.
That's a good catch. I initially just assumed you were looking at a different tech sheet than the product Shine was talking about.

The way they have it stated/labeled is completely assinine. It's actually wrong. I'm a microbiologist converted to biochemist and have to make these calculations every day, but if someone like a junior scientist would pull something like this on me I'd be upset because it would really throw off my acid molarity. That's why I always double check their work.

If they were starting from an absolute stock, say pure crystalline phosphoric acid, they could achieve the 50-something percent, ie weigh out 56 grams and Q.S. to 100 ml with DI water. But here, when they're stating 56%, they're actually starting with a stock solution that's only 75% (I looked and 85% is the max solubility in water). So like you are saying, it's really 56% of a 75% stock, which brings you to the 42%. It works out the same if you use the C1V1=C2V2 formula which is what I use for calculations.

For the none chemistry types, take a cup of coffee that is 75% coffee grounds (eww). Now take a little bit of that and add it to a second mug so it's 56% of that mug volume, with water making up the rest of the volume. Now let it sit on the counter for a few days so the water evaporates. Assuming a 100 ml volume of coffee originally, you'd have 42g of grounds in your cup.

Bottom line, 42% vs. 45% as a discussion point is meaningless. They're practically the same.

But stating 56% phosphoric acid as an active ingredient is wrong, unless it stated on the front label it was 75% phosphoric acid stock and I just didn't see it.

Good eye
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 03:39 PM
carolinacustoms's Avatar
Automotive Extraordinaire
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Connelly Springs NC
Age: 31
Posts: 989
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 363
Thanked 246 Times in 210 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizer View Post
That's a good catch. I initially just assumed you were looking at a different tech sheet than the product Shine was talking about.

The way they have it stated/labeled is completely assinine. It's actually wrong. I'm a microbiologist converted to biochemist and have to make these calculations every day, but if someone like a junior scientist would pull something like this on me I'd be upset because it would really throw off my acid molarity. That's why I always double check their work.

If they were starting from an absolute stock, say pure crystalline phosphoric acid, they could achieve the 50-something percent, ie weigh out 56 grams and Q.S. to 100 ml with DI water. But here, when they're stating 56%, they're actually starting with a stock solution that's only 75% (I looked and 85% is the max solubility in water). So like you are saying, it's really 56% of a 75% stock, which brings you to the 42%. It works out the same if you use the C1V1=C2V2 formula which is what I use for calculations.

For the none chemistry types, take a cup of coffee that is 75% coffee grounds (eww). Now take a little bit of that and add it to a second mug so it's 56% of that mug volume, with water making up the rest of the volume. Now let it sit on the counter for a few days so the water evaporates. Assuming a 100 ml volume of coffee originally, you'd have 42g of grounds in your cup.

Bottom line, 42% vs. 45% as a discussion point is meaningless. They're practically the same.

But stating 56% phosphoric acid as an active ingredient is wrong, unless it stated on the front label it was 75% phosphoric acid stock and I just didn't see it.

Good eye

That is exactly what I thought Lizer Chemistry to me is like asking an algebra question, I done well in school with it, but have not used it in several years since and therefore, chemistry and algebra both appear to me as:
"You have 4 apples, 3 oranges, and 1 banana, there is a train leaving New York City traveling 62 MPH and a plane flying out of LA traveling 578.235 MPH, based on the given information, how many shingles are on your neighbors house?"

Kelly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 03:49 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 1,155
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 63
Thanked 104 Times in 88 Posts
Kelly--when in doubt, the answer is always 3.1415
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Lizer For This Useful Post:
carolinacustoms (04-21-2014)
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 03:50 PM
carolinacustoms's Avatar
Automotive Extraordinaire
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Connelly Springs NC
Age: 31
Posts: 989
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 363
Thanked 246 Times in 210 Posts
But Pies are round, corn bread is square

Kelly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 05:51 PM
shine's Avatar
SPI Thug
 

Last journal entry: some progress
Last photo:
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: bluff dale texas
Posts: 2,727
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 207 Times in 166 Posts
i can promise you this much , the next time i find something that works well and saves some labor or money i will damn sure keep it to myself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #69 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2014, 06:27 PM
carolinacustoms's Avatar
Automotive Extraordinaire
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Connelly Springs NC
Age: 31
Posts: 989
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 363
Thanked 246 Times in 210 Posts
Don't keep it to yourself Shine, just PM me and we can share the info. I don't know enough about chemistry to care what the label says, as long as it works and does what I need it too do. If not for you and a few other people sharing information, I would still be using PPG products and 3M compound.......


Kelly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #70 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2014, 02:47 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: motorcity
Posts: 240
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 10
Thanked 20 Times in 17 Posts
Shine it's not so much the percentage of phosphoric that bothers me about milkstone, its the lack of directions for use on carbon steel. The milk containers are stainless steel, so the mixture of milkstone (as the name implies) is targeted for cleaning the milk residue on stainless steel.

I even had to look up the meaning of milkstone in the encylopedia,
"milk‐stone Deposit of calcium and magnesium phosphates, protein, etc., produced when milk is heated to temperatures above 60 C."
So that is the only thing the milkstone product mixture is designed to clean as far as I can tell, because they don't mention anything else. Ospho and some other rust removal products are designed for automotive work in removing rust, paint adhesion, and inhibiting the return of rust. And another thing that I mentioned earlier is the different versions of milkstone cleaners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevymon View Post
You spiked my interest Shine, so I checked for MSDS sheet on Milkstone and found several different mixtures. A couple of them didn't even list phosphoric acid and the percentage of the ones that do use it varies, but the highest I found was 42%, and no zinc phosphate.

Some of the ones that I looked at were off shore from the US, maybe someone can straighten me out on this, but I would suggest to anyone trying Milkstone to read the tech sheets to see if you have what you want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #71 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2014, 06:38 AM
deadbodyman's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last wiki edit: Stripping paint Last photo:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: augusta,ga.
Age: 54
Posts: 6,239
Wiki Edits: 11

Thanks: 28
Thanked 472 Times in 400 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by shine View Post
i can promise you this much , the next time i find something that works well and saves some labor or money i will damn sure keep it to myself.
I know one thing ,You really set me straight with my buffing and of everything I've learned on this site,THAT is the most valuable lesson by far. heck, if it weren't for you I'd still be buffing and hating every minute of it too..So I for one not only appreciate and respect your opinion, I seek it out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #72 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2014, 07:18 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: motorcity
Posts: 240
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 10
Thanked 20 Times in 17 Posts
Shine, please don't take this as a personal attack, I'm just expressing my opinion on the product, and I probably could have thought more about my approach. I guess its just not as easy to be polite and respectful with the pen as it is in person. Life is too short to be making other people miserable, and that was not my intention.

But this is a discussion forum where a lot of people come to get information. I don't think anyone knows it all, and I sure have my fair share of failed attempts at doing this or that, so if you guys disagree with any of my posts, I hope you point it out so others can be spared. And I will not take it to be an attack on me personally, and that is certainly not what I intended to do to you either Shine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #73 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2014, 11:19 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 1,155
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 63
Thanked 104 Times in 88 Posts
The milkstone is obviously working for Shine, or he wouldn't be using it. Milkstone active ingredient= phosphoric acid.

Ospho active ingredient=phosphoric acid.

Phosphoric acid is phosphoric acid.

The ensuing chemical reaction doesn't care what color bottle it comes in, or what the label says.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #74 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2014, 06:35 PM
Old Fool's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: spokane,wa.
Posts: 1,347
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 8
Thanked 40 Times in 34 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizer View Post
That's a good catch. I initially just assumed you were looking at a different tech sheet than the product Shine was talking about.

The way they have it stated/labeled is completely assinine. It's actually wrong. I'm a microbiologist converted to biochemist and have to make these calculations every day, but if someone like a junior scientist would pull something like this on me I'd be upset because it would really throw off my acid molarity. That's why I always double check their work.

If they were starting from an absolute stock, say pure crystalline phosphoric acid, they could achieve the 50-something percent, ie weigh out 56 grams and Q.S. to 100 ml with DI water. But here, when they're stating 56%, they're actually starting with a stock solution that's only 75% (I looked and 85% is the max solubility in water). So like you are saying, it's really 56% of a 75% stock, which brings you to the 42%. It works out the same if you use the C1V1=C2V2 formula which is what I use for calculations.

For the none chemistry types, take a cup of coffee that is 75% coffee grounds (eww). Now take a little bit of that and add it to a second mug so it's 56% of that mug volume, with water making up the rest of the volume. Now let it sit on the counter for a few days so the water evaporates. Assuming a 100 ml volume of coffee originally, you'd have 42g of grounds in your cup.

Bottom line, 42% vs. 45% as a discussion point is meaningless. They're practically the same.

But stating 56% phosphoric acid as an active ingredient is wrong, unless it stated on the front label it was 75% phosphoric acid stock and I just didn't see it.

Good eye

They do state a 75% solution on the label:
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #75 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2014, 06:40 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 1,155
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 63
Thanked 104 Times in 88 Posts
Yep I saw that when I went back and looked again. A bunch ado about nothing.


[color=gray]Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App[/color]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Body - Exterior posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
surface rust deepsea29c Body - Exterior 4 03-10-2007 01:58 PM
Surface rust 57halfton Body - Exterior 2 07-29-2006 04:00 PM
surface Rust? kevex Body - Exterior 4 02-19-2006 02:32 AM
surface rust mercury88 Body - Exterior 1 08-03-2005 10:45 PM
Surface Rust Benji Body - Exterior 7 02-25-2003 06:36 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.