Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board - Reply to Topic
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> Best rust converters for surface rust
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Thread: Best rust converters for surface rust Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :

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.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
04-23-2014 05:03 PM
Chevymon I'm sorry you feel that way Shine, you have some good paint advice to give and it would be a loss if you leave the site.

At the same time, I think that we all need to be ready for a challenge, so that our information will be the best that we can give. With the price of products today, I for one do not want to be responsible for someone making a mistake.

JFTR, I have been using phosphoric for 25 years, but I wasn't familiar with the data sheets on these two, so the links that I posted were the MSDS sheets, its just to show where the info came from , and make it easy for anyone who wants it. Because if you are going to play with fire, then you need to know how to control it. Its not rocket science but it is chemistry, and not being a chemist, I need to be able to find accurate information.

If it turns out that we don't see you anymore, then thank you for the info on Chemical Guys, I may to try it. Be well, Shine.
04-23-2014 07:48 AM
shine this is the last time i'm going to post on this site. but here is my " opinion "
new guys come here for advice. it's the paint and body section. their hope is to get some help from experienced paint and body tradesmen .
but what they get is confused by all the google experts and wannabe's trying to make rocket science out of cleaning metal . or my favorite , use battery acid on it . the best advice i could give them is to see how far away from this place they could get. i've seen more bad advice than good here lately. i did not come here 10 years ago to win a popularity contest i came here to interact with tradesmen . but i have watched them leave one by one . there is a point where it is just a waste of time . i'll argue with a tradesman all day long because at the end of the day one of us is going to learn something . but arguing with paint salesmen or google experts gets me nothing .
i truly hope these new guys ignore this entire thread .
04-23-2014 07:31 AM
Chevymon OK, here is my opinion, and it is just that----an "opinion"
The label does say 75%.



But it goes back to what I was talking about before, you can not trust labels.
If you look at the data sheet (MSDS), it says that information is not available.

"CHEMICAL IN PRODUCT:N/A; CAS#: N/A; WEIGHT % OF CHEM: N/A"

http://www.stearnspkg.com/msds/bulk/...ACID-RINSE.pdf

As I have said before, I'm not a chemist, so correct me if I'm wrong.

When I look at the MSDS for Ospho it's a different story.
In bold letters, it says PHOSPHORIC ACID SOLUTION (75%)
http://www.jamestowndistributors.com...PHO%20MSDS.pdf

It makes me wonder if that is the reason for the low cost of Milkstone. They don't have the expense of the rust inhibitors, or have to worry about paint adhesion, so maybe they can get away with a weaker phosphoric solution to start their formula with.

The only other ingredients they list are cleaners for the milkstone, and liquid (containing phosphoric acid), so its possible that they could end up with a 42.25% phosphoric even though the original phosphoric solution is less than 75%. I think they probably just get a solution to suit their needs, whatever makes it come out to final solution percentages they want.

You can't really call this a "snake oil product" because they don't make any claims about rust removal, its all about cleaning milkstone as the name implies. So I would suggest a product formulated for rust removal.

Here is another reason for reading the data sheet
AVOID CONTACT WITH STRONG ALKALIES. (WILL PRODUCE VIOLENT ACID/BASE NEUTRALIZATION REACTION)

So don't try to neutralize phosphoric acid. All the data sheets seem to say the same thing about taking the acid off, JUST RINSE IT OFF WHILE IT IS STILL WET. I rewet it with acid before rinsing, to make sure some of it hasn't started to dry. In that state is still looks wet, but will be a little sticky, and thats not good for a complete rinse. Actually, I use a scotch brite pad wet with acid to scrub it just before rinsing, and that does a pretty good job of getting rid of it.
04-22-2014 06:40 PM
Lizer 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]
04-22-2014 06:35 PM
Old Fool
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:
04-22-2014 11:19 AM
Lizer 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.
04-22-2014 07:18 AM
Chevymon 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.
04-22-2014 06:38 AM
deadbodyman
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.
04-22-2014 02:47 AM
Chevymon 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.
04-21-2014 06:27 PM
carolinacustoms 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
04-21-2014 05:51 PM
shine 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.
04-21-2014 03:50 PM
carolinacustoms But Pies are round, corn bread is square

Kelly
04-21-2014 03:49 PM
Lizer Kelly--when in doubt, the answer is always 3.1415
04-21-2014 03:39 PM
carolinacustoms
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
04-21-2014 03:33 PM
Lizer
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
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:17 PM.


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.