I read all of the thread and want to point out some of the highlights:
The author says the article incorrectly identifies it as ATF/Acetone. He apologized for the write-up mistake, and said he used POWER STEERING FLUID. He inadvertently picked up it up instead of the ATF.
Regarding the test procedure, here are some comments:
> "had a control and each piece was electrolytically rusted so it should be a pretty uniform job. As i recall, they were all torqued to a specific torque beforehand as well so there shouldn't be any question as to the validity of the results."
> "Unless my memory fails me, the test fixturing was a bunch of pins pressed in holes of fixed sizes. I would not have wanted to be in charge of trying to develop test fixtures for this and don't know that I could do any better, but pins in bores being pressed out is not quite the same as a bolt threaded into a hole. The latter involves much more surface area. Think about the linear distance if you unwrapped all of the threads from say 1.5" of a 12, 16, or 20 TPI bolt. That's a long way to try to get a penetrant to flow.
I think the corrosion conditions were much shorter duration than say a bolt that spent 5 years under your car in salt water etc. If I recall correctly, dwell time for the test fixtures in the corrosive mixture was rather short, even though it went through several cycles. I tend to think that corrosive adhesion comes from metal transfer from one surface to a mating surface through galvanic action....the longer it occurs the deeper it goes. Again, like I said, I am sure compromises had to be made in setting up the tests. Likely a guy can't spend 10 years rusting something so he can test penetrating oils "
I'm curious about the test results. I would like to go to a junk yard and try out the various fluids on bolts in the yard. It isn't a full-fledged design of experiments, but it will give me some idea if my results overlay the other test's results.
Bill
