TulsaFred
Jedi Warrior
Offline
Here's a question I've never really found an answer to. Everyone says all rust must be removed, like cancer. However, there is no evidence to support this objectively that I've ever seen (strong opinions are not evidence
)
Basically, iron will oxidize to various iron oxides in the presence of oxygen and basically catalyzed by the presence of water.
All coatings seem to work at rust prevention by sealing out oxygen and water, to a greater or lesser extent. This then prevents the rust.
Nothing in this equation relates to the presence of existing rust/ferrous oxides. Doesn't seem like this should make any difference except when the rust is thick enough to interfere with the sealing properties of the coating. I think this is why POR 15 (paint over rust) can be effective when painted directly over existing rust. It is designed to seep in and seal effectively in this situation. The point has nothing to do with POR so much as the point that existing rust doesn't catalyze the formation of more rust. It is simply oxygen and water from the environment that must be kept away from the iron/steel.
If this is true, then removing existing rust is only important so far as it is necessary to allow optimal sealing. Obviously loose, powdery, heavy pitted rust will prevent an effective seal. However, minimal rust at the bottom of deeper pits is unlikely to effect the seal of epoxy primer, it seems to me.
I don't "know" this, I have just thought about it a lot and done some quick and dirty "internet/google" research. There is plenty of opinion from experienced guys that all rust must be removed. However, no evidence or even theory given as to why that is. Generally just comparisons to "cancer" and the like, which is silly. That and a general feeling that it makes "sense", which we all probably share, but there are many examples of things that "seem" correct which actually are not.
Interested in opinions and thoughts on this.
Fred
Basically, iron will oxidize to various iron oxides in the presence of oxygen and basically catalyzed by the presence of water.
All coatings seem to work at rust prevention by sealing out oxygen and water, to a greater or lesser extent. This then prevents the rust.
Nothing in this equation relates to the presence of existing rust/ferrous oxides. Doesn't seem like this should make any difference except when the rust is thick enough to interfere with the sealing properties of the coating. I think this is why POR 15 (paint over rust) can be effective when painted directly over existing rust. It is designed to seep in and seal effectively in this situation. The point has nothing to do with POR so much as the point that existing rust doesn't catalyze the formation of more rust. It is simply oxygen and water from the environment that must be kept away from the iron/steel.
If this is true, then removing existing rust is only important so far as it is necessary to allow optimal sealing. Obviously loose, powdery, heavy pitted rust will prevent an effective seal. However, minimal rust at the bottom of deeper pits is unlikely to effect the seal of epoxy primer, it seems to me.
I don't "know" this, I have just thought about it a lot and done some quick and dirty "internet/google" research. There is plenty of opinion from experienced guys that all rust must be removed. However, no evidence or even theory given as to why that is. Generally just comparisons to "cancer" and the like, which is silly. That and a general feeling that it makes "sense", which we all probably share, but there are many examples of things that "seem" correct which actually are not.
Interested in opinions and thoughts on this.
Fred
Hi Guest!
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 