On Wed, 19 May 2004 05:22:12 GMT, "Dan White"
posted:


"Sandy" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:07:14 GMT, "Dan White"
posted:

There. Does that settle it?


Settle what?

Hey, lighten up!

Sorry, that sounded much more serious than intended

It was just a joke. I'm on your side, anyway. I have
some rusted metal soaking for about 36 hours now. I'll stop it Wed
afternoon and see what I get. I'll let you know, fwiw.

I'm now getting a bit of effervescence in mine. Carbonates dissolving,
I guess. That's a more promising sign, but 28 hours shows very little
cleaning. Not long ago, I stuck a very rusted hose clamp
(hydraulically applied) in vinegar in the hope that it would fall
apart. What it did do was to make the non-rusted chromed areas nice
and shiny. As there was still a lot of metal left, and not all rust as
it originally seemed, it required 3000 rpm of an 8" alumina wheel

My impression so far is that the salt impedes the derusting process.
I have read in places that salt is added to vinegar as a mild abrasive
when rubbing a rusted item clean. This is a very different process
than the one claimed in this thread.



That salt and vinegar are useless for derusting rusty tools?
Pretty much, I would contend, so far.

That Charlie was being a whinging busybody by complaining about our
discussion?
Yep, see my reponse to Jim.



"Jim Wilson" wrote in message
k.net...
Sandy wrote...
Jim Wilson posted:

Hyperbole, perhaps?

Nope, comparative. Cf dropping a rock on your foot

Ok, perhaps more complex than dropping a rock on your foot, but that
doesn't say a whole lot, does it? (G)

My conclusion so far is that using vinegar to clean off rust is a
waste of bloody time

It certainly is if you watch it. (G)

In the context of whining that our discussion was OT for this forum.
Otherwise, what was the aim of his message?

That wasn't the context. He started by disagreeing with your assertion
that "What we need explaining is why the presence of sodium chloride in
the vinegar is advantageous." He noted that "we" non-chemist
woodworkers
do not need that explained at all. We need only know whether it works,
not why.

Indeed, even a correct, lucid, and perfectly presented explanation
would
be of limited utility to the majority, although it might well be
interesting to many of us. An inconclusive, jargon-filled technical
debate would have to have considerably less utility, wouldn't you
agree?

Only afterward did he observe that the thread had wandered into OT
territory, and even then he did not suggest aborting the thread, but
rather that the subject line should have been altered.

Don't get me wrong -- personally, I am quite interested in the
discussion, and have been following the thread closely, but obviously I
do have a penchant for useless academic debate :-). I interjected
because
I felt your take on Charlie's post was wrong, and that the points he
was
really trying to make were valid, to wit: 1) most readers of this NG
neither need nor want to understand this stuff, and 2) the thread has
drifted off topic for this NG. I still want to hear it.

Jim