PO

"Paul O."

08/05/2004 6:02 AM

Salt and vinegar for rust removal

Did a google for rust removal and saw a few references for removal of
lightly rusted hand tools using table salt and vinegar. Any of you use this
method? If this works would like to try it before scrounging up the parts
for electrolytic rust removal. How much vinegar and salt do you mix with
water? Thanks.

--
Paul O.
[email protected]


This topic has 89 replies

S

Sandy <>

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

12/05/2004 9:57 PM

On Sat, 8 May 2004 06:02:31 -0700, "Paul O." <[email protected]>
posted:

>Did a google for rust removal and saw a few references for removal of
>lightly rusted hand tools using table salt and vinegar. Any of you use this
>method? If this works would like to try it before scrounging up the parts
>for electrolytic rust removal. How much vinegar and salt do you mix with
>water? Thanks.

I'm wondering why the salt. It surely does nothing but perhaps cause
problems later on. I would prefer a stiff brush and kerosene or WD40.
Although vinegar will not rapidly dissolve iron, it will very slowly.
It will also, a little more quickly, dissolve rust, but I would prefer
to remove this mechanically with something that impedes further
rusting. Just my 3 cents...

LB

Larry Blanchard

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

08/05/2004 2:57 PM

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >Did a google for rust removal and saw a few references for removal of
> >lightly rusted hand tools using table salt and vinegar. Any of you use this
> >method? If this works would like to try it before scrounging up the parts
> >for electrolytic rust removal. How much vinegar and salt do you mix with
> >water? Thanks.
>
> I've used sandpaper, then fine steel wool. Works just fine, and gets
> rid of heavy to light rust.
>
And completely destroys any collectible value the tool may have
had.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

LB

Larry Blanchard

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

08/05/2004 3:02 PM

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I have used the salt and vinegar method for cleaning small hand tools for
> several years. It works slowly, but works well for high carbon steel --
> especially plane irons and chisels. You will need to use something slightly
> abrasive to help clean the surface --

I've also used it many times, but I never needed an abrasive.
Wipe it off afterwards or maybe use a soft toothbrush, but
that's all.

> The mixture is simple, standard 5% acidity white vinegar and table salt --
> just dissolve as much salt in the vinegar as it will take, and it takes
> quite a bit and dissolves slowly as it nears the saturation point. The
> mixture can be reused several times even though it turns red from the rust.

My experience is the same.

> Another important point, the steel will rust very quickly when removed from
> the solution. Keep some clear rinse water and a can of WD40 spray handy to
> clean and protect the tool.
>
Yea, verily, amen! Rust starts reappearing within a few minutes
:-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

LB

Larry Blanchard

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

09/05/2004 4:22 PM

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> I know nothing of chemistry so my questions are(1) When disposing of this
> stuff, anything in particular to worry about? (2) When storing, is a metal
> coffee can ok, should the container be vented? Don't want to use this
> mixture in anything that it will eventually eat thru. Thanks all for your
> help and advice.
>
I'm no chemist either, but a friend who is told me the salt
(sodium chloride) and the vinegar (acetic acid) reacted to make
a weak hydrochloric acid. So I wouldn't store it in metal.

I have some in the original vinegar bottle (plastic) that's been
there for at least a couple of years. As someone pointed out,
it gets dirty but it still works. I do add a little more salt
from time to time.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

LB

Larry Blanchard

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

12/05/2004 1:43 PM

In article <[email protected]>, Sandy
<> says...
> I'm wondering why the salt. It surely does nothing but perhaps cause
> problems later on.
>
See your friendly local chemistry professor :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to Larry Blanchard on 12/05/2004 1:43 PM

17/05/2004 6:40 AM

Sandy wrote:

> On Sun, 16 May 2004 23:21:33 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
>>Sandy wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:15:37 -0500, Unknown <[email protected]>
>>> posted:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:04:26 -0700, Larry Blanchard
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>,;In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>,;[email protected] says...
>>>>>,;> Ditto! All I can say is that the presence of ions in solution,
>>>>>ionic ,;> strength, does definitely affect how species in solution
>>>>>react. Maybe there ,;> is some physical chemistry website or ng you can
>>>>>visit and ask this
>>>>>,;> question. I'd be interested to know, too!
>>>>>,;>
>>>>>,;Wow! I didn't mean to start such a learned discussion :-). My
>>>>>,;knowledge of chemistry is limited to making various explosive
>>>>>,;compounds, learned long ago in my juvenile days. And lately, I
>>>>>,;think I've forgotten most of that - CRS seting in :-).
>>>>>,;
>>>>>,;But what I meant by "ask a chemist" is that a friend of mine who
>>>>>,;is a chemist said that the vinegar and salt combined to form a
>>>>>,;weak hydrochloric acid. I took his word for it.
>>>>
>>>>You shouldn't have as he was wrong.
>>>>
>>>>Vinegar is approximately 5% acetic acid plus some other goodies to
>>>>provide some taste. The hydrogen ion concentration is not sufficient
>>>>to react with metallic iron and therein lies one of the keys to the
>>>>process. The other key is the fact that chloride ions form a stable
>>>>complex with iron ions in solution. The iron chloride complex is
>>>>strong enough so that iron oxide will dissolve and form that complex.
>>>>Since there is no oxidant strong enough to react with iron metal the
>>>>net result is that the iron oxide goes into solution as the chloride
>>>>but the iron metal does not react.
>>>>
>>>>It is essential that the solution be kept oxygen free or the metal
>>>>will dissolve. This is particularly noticeable if you allow the metal
>>>>to be "derusted" to stick out of the solution into air e.g. you will
>>>>find that there has been a dissolution of iron metal at the air liquid
>>>>interface.
>>>>
>>>>The role of the acetic acid is to keep the solution acidic enough to
>>>>prevent the precipitation of iron oxide but low enough so that iron
>>>>metal does not react with hydrogen ions. It is the high concentration
>>>>of chloride that removes the rust not a "weak hydrochloric acid".
>>>
>>> How so exactly?
>>> Iron acetate is surely soluble enough?
>>>
>>>>If one used a concentrated salt solution without the acetic acid then
>>>>one would get a preciptate of hydrous iron oxide at the surface. This
>>>>would slow the reaction to a crawl.
>>>
>>> Um, surely without the hydrogen ions, you are not going to get any
>>> dissolution of anything in the first place. All you need is an anion
>>> along with the H+ that does not form an insoluble precipitate with the
>>> resulting iron ions.
>>>
>>>>A weak acid such as acetic acid allows one to put a lot of acid in the
>>>>solution but maintain a relatively low hydrogen concentration.
>>>
>>> Yep, that's what "weak" means wrt acids and bases.
>>>
>>>>The solution if kept covered can be used repeatedly until the amount
>>>>of dissolved iron reaches a point where the hydrous oxide begins to
>>>>precipitate.
>>>
>>> Where you have infact neutralised all the acetic acid present.
>>>
>>>>If the used solutions are left open to the air then it
>>>>will accumulate ferric chloride as a result of air oxidation.
>>>
>>> No, it will remain a solution of iron ions, acetate ions, sodium ions
>>> and chloride ions. The iron ions will slowly precipitate to iron
>>> hydroxide complexes as the final H+ ions are used up. No?
>>>
>>>>That
>>>>ferric chloride is an oxidizing agent strong enough to react with iron
>>>>metal which is the reason one gets an "etch line" at the liquid
>>>>surface.
>>>
>>> Yes, if what you had was ferric chloride. You don't. You have a
>>> neutral solution of the ions I just mentioned, surely.
>>
>>You keep asking this question over and over.
>
> Perhaps because I've not seen a satisfactory answer yet, and the
> person who wrote that article quoted, has asked to state the query
> again?
>
>>First, if you have ions they
>>are not "neutral".
>
> Huh? Sodium chloride solution is neutral.
>
>>By definition an ion is electrically charged, hence it
>>is reactive.
>
> Got nothing to do with chemical neutrality, sorry.
>
>>The solution is neutral because for each cation there is a
>>matching anion with the opposite charge, but the ions themselves are not
>>neutral at all.
>
> I never said ions were neutral -- I was talking about the solution.
> The solution MUST be electrically neutral, but chemical neutrality has
> to do with balance between H+ and OH- in the solution.

"The solution" is not what reacts with the rust. What reacts with the rust
is individual ions within that solution.

>>Second, chlorine is one of the most reactive of all
>>elements,
>
> There is NO elemental chorine involved, sorry.

So what is a chlorine ion floating around with its electrical charge exposed
if not "elemental chlorine"? What comes in contact with the rust is not
sodium and chlorine bound, it's individual sodium ions and individual
chlorine ions.

>>hence any reaction involving chlorine will proceed at a higher
>>rate than one involving acetate.
>
> See above. The chloride ion is arguably more stable than the acetate
> ion.

I thought we were talking chemistry here, not physics. A monatomic ion is
not "stable" or "unstable" chemically--that's a property of a compound.

>>The end result is that by putting some
>>chlorine ions in the solution you end up with a faster reaction.
>
> Sorry, your premises are wrong so your conclusion is not sound.

No, your understanding of what constitutes an ion is so wrong that you can't
follow the argument.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

DW

"Dan White"

in reply to Larry Blanchard on 12/05/2004 1:43 PM

14/05/2004 2:47 PM


"Unknown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:56:58 GMT, "Dan White"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >,;
> >,;Your mechanisms sound interesting, but it's hard to know if this is the
> >,;actual path without knowing the driving forces mathematically.
>
> It is nice that the correct chemistry is also interesting.
>
> If you need the math lookup some coordination chemistry text books at
> a technical library. The topic is probably not of that much interest
> for this group. Google "coordination chemistry" with the quotes will
> give you a good start. Probably more than you ever wanted to know.

OK, thanks for the follow up.

dwhite

So

Sandy

in reply to Larry Blanchard on 12/05/2004 1:43 PM

17/05/2004 12:11 PM

On Sun, 16 May 2004 23:21:33 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> posted:

>Sandy wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:15:37 -0500, Unknown <[email protected]>
>> posted:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:04:26 -0700, Larry Blanchard
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>,;In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>,;[email protected] says...
>>>>,;> Ditto! All I can say is that the presence of ions in solution, ionic
>>>>,;> strength, does definitely affect how species in solution react.
>>>>Maybe there ,;> is some physical chemistry website or ng you can visit
>>>>and ask this
>>>>,;> question. I'd be interested to know, too!
>>>>,;>
>>>>,;Wow! I didn't mean to start such a learned discussion :-). My
>>>>,;knowledge of chemistry is limited to making various explosive
>>>>,;compounds, learned long ago in my juvenile days. And lately, I
>>>>,;think I've forgotten most of that - CRS seting in :-).
>>>>,;
>>>>,;But what I meant by "ask a chemist" is that a friend of mine who
>>>>,;is a chemist said that the vinegar and salt combined to form a
>>>>,;weak hydrochloric acid. I took his word for it.
>>>
>>>You shouldn't have as he was wrong.
>>>
>>>Vinegar is approximately 5% acetic acid plus some other goodies to
>>>provide some taste. The hydrogen ion concentration is not sufficient
>>>to react with metallic iron and therein lies one of the keys to the
>>>process. The other key is the fact that chloride ions form a stable
>>>complex with iron ions in solution. The iron chloride complex is
>>>strong enough so that iron oxide will dissolve and form that complex.
>>>Since there is no oxidant strong enough to react with iron metal the
>>>net result is that the iron oxide goes into solution as the chloride
>>>but the iron metal does not react.
>>>
>>>It is essential that the solution be kept oxygen free or the metal
>>>will dissolve. This is particularly noticeable if you allow the metal
>>>to be "derusted" to stick out of the solution into air e.g. you will
>>>find that there has been a dissolution of iron metal at the air liquid
>>>interface.
>>>
>>>The role of the acetic acid is to keep the solution acidic enough to
>>>prevent the precipitation of iron oxide but low enough so that iron
>>>metal does not react with hydrogen ions. It is the high concentration
>>>of chloride that removes the rust not a "weak hydrochloric acid".
>>
>> How so exactly?
>> Iron acetate is surely soluble enough?
>>
>>>If one used a concentrated salt solution without the acetic acid then
>>>one would get a preciptate of hydrous iron oxide at the surface. This
>>>would slow the reaction to a crawl.
>>
>> Um, surely without the hydrogen ions, you are not going to get any
>> dissolution of anything in the first place. All you need is an anion
>> along with the H+ that does not form an insoluble precipitate with the
>> resulting iron ions.
>>
>>>A weak acid such as acetic acid allows one to put a lot of acid in the
>>>solution but maintain a relatively low hydrogen concentration.
>>
>> Yep, that's what "weak" means wrt acids and bases.
>>
>>>The solution if kept covered can be used repeatedly until the amount
>>>of dissolved iron reaches a point where the hydrous oxide begins to
>>>precipitate.
>>
>> Where you have infact neutralised all the acetic acid present.
>>
>>>If the used solutions are left open to the air then it
>>>will accumulate ferric chloride as a result of air oxidation.
>>
>> No, it will remain a solution of iron ions, acetate ions, sodium ions
>> and chloride ions. The iron ions will slowly precipitate to iron
>> hydroxide complexes as the final H+ ions are used up. No?
>>
>>>That
>>>ferric chloride is an oxidizing agent strong enough to react with iron
>>>metal which is the reason one gets an "etch line" at the liquid
>>>surface.
>>
>> Yes, if what you had was ferric chloride. You don't. You have a
>> neutral solution of the ions I just mentioned, surely.
>
>You keep asking this question over and over.

Perhaps because I've not seen a satisfactory answer yet, and the
person who wrote that article quoted, has asked to state the query
again?

>First, if you have ions they
>are not "neutral".

Huh? Sodium chloride solution is neutral.

>By definition an ion is electrically charged, hence it
>is reactive.

Got nothing to do with chemical neutrality, sorry.

>The solution is neutral because for each cation there is a
>matching anion with the opposite charge, but the ions themselves are not
>neutral at all.

I never said ions were neutral -- I was talking about the solution.
The solution MUST be electrically neutral, but chemical neutrality has
to do with balance between H+ and OH- in the solution.

>Second, chlorine is one of the most reactive of all
>elements,

There is NO elemental chorine involved, sorry.

>hence any reaction involving chlorine will proceed at a higher
>rate than one involving acetate.

See above. The chloride ion is arguably more stable than the acetate
ion.

>The end result is that by putting some
>chlorine ions in the solution you end up with a faster reaction.

Sorry, your premises are wrong so your conclusion is not sound.

Ud

Unknown

in reply to Larry Blanchard on 12/05/2004 1:43 PM

14/05/2004 6:02 AM

On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:56:58 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>,;
>,;"Unknown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>,;news:[email protected]...
>,;> On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:04:26 -0700, Larry Blanchard
>,;> <[email protected]> wrote:
>,;>
>,;> >,;In article <[email protected]>,
>,;> >,;[email protected] says...
>,;> >,;> Ditto! All I can say is that the presence of ions in solution, ionic
>,;> >,;> strength, does definitely affect how species in solution react.
>,;Maybe there
>,;> >,;> is some physical chemistry website or ng you can visit and ask this
>,;> >,;> question. I'd be interested to know, too!
>,;> >,;>
>,;> >,;Wow! I didn't mean to start such a learned discussion :-). My
>,;> >,;knowledge of chemistry is limited to making various explosive
>,;> >,;compounds, learned long ago in my juvenile days. And lately, I
>,;> >,;think I've forgotten most of that - CRS seting in :-).
>,;> >,;
>,;> >,;But what I meant by "ask a chemist" is that a friend of mine who
>,;> >,;is a chemist said that the vinegar and salt combined to form a
>,;> >,;weak hydrochloric acid. I took his word for it.
>,;>
>,;> You shouldn't have as he was wrong.
>,;>
>,;> Vinegar is approximately 5% acetic acid plus some other goodies to
>,;> provide some taste. The hydrogen ion concentration is not sufficient
>,;> to react with metallic iron and therein lies one of the keys to the
>,;> process. The other key is the fact that chloride ions form a stable
>,;> complex with iron ions in solution. The iron chloride complex is
>,;> strong enough so that iron oxide will dissolve and form that complex.
>,;> Since there is no oxidant strong enough to react with iron metal the
>,;> net result is that the iron oxide goes into solution as the chloride
>,;> but the iron metal does not react.
>,;
>,;Can you explain exactly what this iron-chloride complex is? Are you saying
>,;that the iron oxide (rust) is preferentially breaking it's molecular bonds
>,;and is reforming as some kind of complex, or as iron chloride? I take it
>,;that it is not iron chloride because you say below that if oxygen is
>,;introduced, then ferric chloride will form. Second question: What is the
>,;reaction that transforms this "iron chloride complex" into ferric chloride?

Both ferrous ions and ferric ions form stable chloride complexes.
Stable enough so that the rust does dissolve in the strong chloride
solution by breaking iron-oxygen bonds. When the rust dissolves in a
chloride solution one will get a solution which contains both species.
In the presence of metallic iron the ferric chloride (from dissolution
of iron III in rust) will be reduced to ferrous chloride so when the
reaction is done we have a ferrous chloride in solution. If one adds
oxygen (from air) then the ferrous is oxidized to ferric and this
ferric immediately reacts with the metallic iron. The result is that
one dissolves more metallic iron than is necessary and probably more
than one wants.

In general you don't usually find three different oxidation states of
an element present in solution at the same time. The highest oxidation
state (ferric in this case) tends to react with the lowest (iron
metal) to equilibrate with the one in the middle (ferrous). If you
keep adding more air to form more ferric it should be obvious that the
above reaction will continue until you run out of iron or oxygen. You
can run out of oxygen by keeping the pot covered and the piece
immersed.

Usually the quantity of rust dissolved is small in comparisons to the
mass of iron metal so one doesn't notice the fact that some iron metal
is sacrificed in this procedure. If you allow air into the mix the
effect of dissolved oxygen can be very apparent. You can demonstrate
this by letting a piece of iron be partially immersed in the solution.
You will get an etch line at the liquid surface. If it is some antique
you are restoring this etch line will not be a pleasant sight and will
be almost impossible to fix.
>,;
>,;Your mechanisms sound interesting, but it's hard to know if this is the
>,;actual path without knowing the driving forces mathematically.

It is nice that the correct chemistry is also interesting.

If you need the math lookup some coordination chemistry text books at
a technical library. The topic is probably not of that much interest
for this group. Google "coordination chemistry" with the quotes will
give you a good start. Probably more than you ever wanted to know.
>,;
>,;dwhite
>,;
>,;
>,;
>,;>
>,;> It is essential that the solution be kept oxygen free or the metal
>,;> will dissolve. This is particularly noticeable if you allow the metal
>,;> to be "derusted" to stick out of the solution into air e.g. you will
>,;> find that there has been a dissolution of iron metal at the air liquid
>,;> interface.
>,;>
>,;> The role of the acetic acid is to keep the solution acidic enough to
>,;> prevent the precipitation of iron oxide but low enough so that iron
>,;> metal does not react with hydrogen ions. It is the high concentration
>,;> of chloride that removes the rust not a "weak hydrochloric acid".
>,;>
>,;> If one used a concentrated salt solution without the acetic acid then
>,;> one would get a preciptate of hydrous iron oxide at the surface. This
>,;> would slow the reaction to a crawl.
>,;>
>,;> A weak acid such as acetic acid allows one to put a lot of acid in the
>,;> solution but maintain a relatively low hydrogen concentration.
>,;>
>,;> The solution if kept covered can be used repeatedly until the amount
>,;> of dissolved iron reaches a point where the hydrous oxide begins to
>,;> precipitate. If the used solutions are left open to the air then it
>,;> will accumulate ferric chloride as a result of air oxidation. That
>,;> ferric chloride is an oxidizing agent strong enough to react with iron
>,;> metal which is the reason one gets an "etch line" at the liquid
>,;> surface.
>,;>
>,;>
>,;

LB

Larry Blanchard

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

13/05/2004 9:04 AM

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Ditto! All I can say is that the presence of ions in solution, ionic
> strength, does definitely affect how species in solution react. Maybe there
> is some physical chemistry website or ng you can visit and ask this
> question. I'd be interested to know, too!
>
Wow! I didn't mean to start such a learned discussion :-). My
knowledge of chemistry is limited to making various explosive
compounds, learned long ago in my juvenile days. And lately, I
think I've forgotten most of that - CRS seting in :-).

But what I meant by "ask a chemist" is that a friend of mine who
is a chemist said that the vinegar and salt combined to form a
weak hydrochloric acid. I took his word for it.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

So

Sandy

in reply to Larry Blanchard on 13/05/2004 9:04 AM

18/05/2004 11:59 AM

On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:44:10 -0700, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> posted:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> 2. You have to admit that the NaCl is greatly accelerating the reaction
>> rate.
>>
>And that's the whole point. It does make a difference - I know,
>I've tried it both ways.
>
>Why does it work? I don't really care.

Interesting. And do you expect everyone here to have this lack of
interest, like Charlie does?

I, for one, care why it is reported to work.

You appear not to have considered the downsides of soaking rusted
ferrous metal in salt solution? Museums have a hell of a job removing
salt from ferrous artifacts found in the sea.

BR

Bill Rogers

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

08/05/2004 4:58 PM

On Sat, 8 May 2004 06:02:31 -0700, "Paul O." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Did a google for rust removal and saw a few references for removal of
>lightly rusted hand tools using table salt and vinegar. Any of you use this
>method? If this works would like to try it before scrounging up the parts
>for electrolytic rust removal. How much vinegar and salt do you mix with
>water? Thanks.

I've used sandpaper, then fine steel wool. Works just fine, and gets
rid of heavy to light rust.

Works on wood too, I hear.

On one very badly rusted item I started with a fairly decrepit rough
hone and scraped away with that. This was followed by sandpaper and
steel wool. It changed an old piece of rust I'd bought at a yard sale
for $5 Can into a cabinet maker's plane [hollow grooves in the base,
about 18" long.] I repainted also, and gave it as a gift to a person
with infinitely more talent than I have. He's still using it.

Bill.

AD

Andy Dingley

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

10/05/2004 1:16 AM

On Sat, 08 May 2004 16:58:36 -0400, Bill Rogers <[email protected]>
wrote:

>a cabinet maker's plane [hollow grooves in the base,
>about 18" long.]

What's a "cabinet maker's plane" and why does it have a grooved base ?
--
Smert' spamionam

HW

Hoyt Weathers

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

08/05/2004 1:32 PM

This may sound odd, but I have used plain ole brake fluid to remove rust. Wear
goggles when using it because it is death to eyes. Not really, but it is bad stuff.
No harm done to try it on some totally unimportant rusted steel or iron. "Nothing
ventured Nothing gained"
Hoyt W.

Ken Vaughn wrote:

> I have used the salt and vinegar method for cleaning small hand tools for
> several years. It works slowly, but works well for high carbon steel --
> especially plane irons and chisels. You will need to use something slightly
> abrasive to help clean the surface -- I have found that 3M ScotchBrite pads
> work well. On badly rusted plane irons, 2 to 3 cycles (soak for 30 minutes
> and scrub with pad) will clean it pretty well.
>
> The mixture is simple, standard 5% acidity white vinegar and table salt --
> just dissolve as much salt in the vinegar as it will take, and it takes
> quite a bit and dissolves slowly as it nears the saturation point. The
> mixture can be reused several times even though it turns red from the rust.
> Another important point, the steel will rust very quickly when removed from
> the solution. Keep some clear rinse water and a can of WD40 spray handy to
> clean and protect the tool.
>
> --
> Ken Vaughn
> Visit My Workshop: http://home.earthlink.net/~kvaughn65/
>
> "Paul O." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Did a google for rust removal and saw a few references for removal of
> > lightly rusted hand tools using table salt and vinegar. Any of you use
> this
> > method? If this works would like to try it before scrounging up the parts
> > for electrolytic rust removal. How much vinegar and salt do you mix with
> > water? Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > Paul O.
> > [email protected]
> >
> >

LH

"Lowell Holmes"

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

10/05/2004 7:09 AM

Aww gee,
Do you suppose it could be a #6 bailey?
I'd guess Stanley thought it should have grooves in the base (sole?).

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 08 May 2004 16:58:36 -0400, Bill Rogers <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >a cabinet maker's plane [hollow grooves in the base,
> >about 18" long.]
>
> What's a "cabinet maker's plane" and why does it have a grooved base ?
> --
> Smert' spamionam

So

Sandy

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

14/05/2004 10:04 AM

On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:04:26 -0700, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> posted:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> Ditto! All I can say is that the presence of ions in solution, ionic
>> strength, does definitely affect how species in solution react. Maybe there
>> is some physical chemistry website or ng you can visit and ask this
>> question. I'd be interested to know, too!
>>
>Wow! I didn't mean to start such a learned discussion :-). My
>knowledge of chemistry is limited to making various explosive
>compounds, learned long ago in my juvenile days. And lately, I
>think I've forgotten most of that - CRS seting in :-).
>
>But what I meant by "ask a chemist" is that a friend of mine who
>is a chemist said that the vinegar and salt combined to form a
>weak hydrochloric acid. I took his word for it.


Yep it makes what might be regarded as a "weak" hydrochloric acid.
This doesn't mean "dilute" BTW.
And guess what? Acetic acid is "weak" so there is effectively no
difference on this count. If you could make acetic acid "strong" you
would have the equivalent of hydrochloric acid.
Strong and Weak wrt acids means that they dissociate forming the H+
and anions to a greater or lesser extent.

So

Sandy

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

13/05/2004 7:52 PM

On Thu, 13 May 2004 07:31:37 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> posted:

>"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> >>
>> >> >In article <[email protected]>, Sandy
>> >> ><> says...
>> >> >> I'm wondering why the salt. It surely does nothing but perhaps cause
>> >> >> problems later on.
>> >> >>
>> >> >See your friendly local chemistry professor :-).
>> >>
>> >> Do you not know what it does?
>> >> I've got a fairly reasonable handle on chemistry, and I can't see what
>> >> the salt is there for. The acetic acid will dissolve rust, and slowly
>> >> dissolve iron. No need for the salt unless you know of a good reason.
>> >> Please expound.
>> >>
>> >
>
>Sandy - I provided that rather long post that you responded to yesterday. I
>deleted it because of its size, and most of it is unrelated to your
>question. Also, you should realize (if you didn't) that I was passing on an
>article written by someone and didn't add any of my own thoughts, since I
>have forgotten so much chemistry I didn't want to dust off the brain cells.
>However, after reading your correct responses to his article, I had some
>thoughts that might possibly help, although I don't have a proven answer to
>your question. :(
>
>Let me say that I agree that the driving force in the reaction to dissolve
>the iron oxide is the hydronium ion, and formation of water on the right
>side of the equilibrium. I think the answer to why you have to add salt to
>the mix is that the salt increases the ionic strength of the solution. This
>improves the conductivity of the solution, and might have the effect of
>improving the rate of reaction by allowing an easier transfer of charges
>among the reacting ions. I know this is a bit vague, but I don't know if
>anybody has a really good answer on this.
>
>On the other hand, I recall that the equilibrium constant is really based on
>the activity of the ions in solution, and not their concentration. At
>higher ionic strengths (due to salt addition), I believe the activity, and
>therefore, the equilibrium constant, is lower than it would be without the
>salt. It seems to me this would tend to lower the dissociation of the
>acetic acid, and bind up even more H+ than without the salt. I think if
>this is correct, that it isn't the prevailing factor as I believe the salt
>does increase the reaction rate.
>
>I think the case of cleaning your copper pots is similar to the rust issue.
>In that case, if you pour vinegar on the copper pot with the oxides on it,
>you won't see much if anything happen. When you sprinkle salt on the
>surface wetted with vinegar, you quickly see the oxides disappear from the
>spots where the salt is dissolving. It is very clear that salt does speed
>the rate of reaction in the case of copper oxides, and I have to think it
>does the same with iron oxides.
>
>If you don't believe salt does anything, it is simple enough to test for
>yourself on two equal rusty spots. As to "why" it works, I have to think it
>is because of improved migration of electrons through solution due to the
>higher ionic strength of the solution. You might find, for example, that it
>takes two weeks to do the job with acetic acid alone, and one day with the
>salt added. Whatever problems you say the salt may cause later on may be
>outweighted by the time factor. Of course it is also possible (probable?)
>that the acid alone will not only take longer, but might in fact not remove
>as much oxide in the end.
>
>I had one other thought, improbable as it may be: I'd say the Fe3+ ion is
>relatively large compared to the Cl- ion. On the other hand, the acetate
>ion is of course a molecule and not a single ion. Maybe there is also a bit
>of steric hindrance going on as well. With no Cl- present, all the Fe3+ has
>to bond with the acetate molecule (3 of them). If there is some difficulty
>fitting 3 of these molecules on one Fe ion, the reaction could be inhibited.
>If free Cl- is present, it could more quickly and easily neutralize the Fe
>ion and move the molecule away from the reacting area.
>
>regards,
>dwhite
>

Interesting thoughts, Dan. This discussion has certainly disturbed
some old cobwebs in my attic :)
Gotta be over 40 years since that happened, although my daughter is
doing some elementary chem at night school and my helping her is also
raising the dust.

I don't disbelieve that it helps matters, but I just can't quite
understand why, although you have given me some food for thought.
I have never tested it, although as it happens, I had a rusty steel
band on a hose fiting that I wanted to remove and so stuck it in a
glass of white vinegar overnight. It cleaned the rust off enough to
show me that there was so much metal left that it needed the grinder
to get it off.

I can't really buy the conductivity argument, as what needs to happen
is the migration of H+ to the rust and the migration away from it of
iron ions.

I also can't buy the spatial problem of the size of acetate ions, coz
the stuff is all in solution, and not forming crystals.

BTW, the problems later with soaking a piece of rusty steel in salt
solution is that the salt gets trapped in the fine pits of the rusted
surface and later attracts moisture and THEN the conductivity of this
solution exposed to oxygen continues the corrosion at a pace.

Anyways, thanks for the stimulating discussion :)

So

Sandy

in reply to Sandy on 13/05/2004 7:52 PM

17/05/2004 9:13 PM

On Mon, 17 May 2004 07:10:31 -0500, Unknown <[email protected]>
posted:

>On Mon, 17 May 2004 04:44:41 GMT, "Dan White"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>,;
>>,;"Unknown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>,;news:[email protected]...
>>,;> On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:30:02 GMT, "Dan White"
>>,;> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>,;>
>>,;> >,;
>>,;> >,;"Charles Erskine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>,;> >,;news:[email protected]...
>>,;> >,;> More than you probably wanted to know:
>>,;> >,;>
>>,;> >,;> http://yarchive.net/metal/rust_remove.html
>>,;> >,;>
>>,;> >,;> <snip>
>>,;> >,;
>>,;> >,;This is the post I pasted in this thread originally to try and answer
>>,;the
>>,;> >,;original question.
>>,;>
>>,;> OK I missed your original post. I wrote the article you refer to. I am
>>,;> a chemist and do know what is happening in this procedure so let's
>>,;> start fresh.
>>,;>
>>,;> What is it that needs more clarification on this topic? You ask the
>>,;> questions and I will try to give a reasonable explanation.
>>,;
>>,;I had a feeling you were the same person as the original post I pasted.
>>,;Sandy had the original question and I was trying to help. The only thing I
>>,;still don't understand is exactly what the "complex" is that drives the
>>,;Fe203 to dissociate and reform this complex with Cl-. Is it some kind of
>>,;hydrated Fe complexed with Cl-?
>
>
>If the rust is present as Fe203 then the iron is trivalent and will go
>into the salt-acetic acid solution predominately as the FeCl6(-3)
>complex. Note that there is no change in oxidation state of the iron.
>
>That iron complex is a central trivalent iron ion (with a +3 charge)
>which usually has a coordination number of six. That means there will
>be six positions around that iron ion that are occupied by some
>species. Since the concentration of chloride is so high relative to
>the other anions the predominate species will be FeCl6(-3). The net
>charge of the complex is -3 because each chloride carries a -1 charge
>and the iron has a +3 charge. There certainly will be some anions
>where an acetate ion and/or a hydroxyl ion will replace one or more of
>the chlorides. For this discussion the exact composition of that iron
>complex is not only unknown but is of no particular interest. Just
>remember that if too many of the chlorides in that complex are
>replaced by hydroxyls or acetates then the iron will precipitate as a
>hydrous oxide or basic acetate and that is why one uses such a high
>concentration of chloride.

So with excess acetic acid present, "hydrous oxides or basic acetates"
will be precipitated? Surely they will be redissolved by the excess
acetic acid as soluble acetates?

>It is the stability of that iron chloride complex and the whopping
>excess of chloride ions that drives this reaction.

What is formed from the stable soluble ferric acetate that is taken
out of the process?
If all this chloride is "taken out of the scene" what happens to all
those lonely sodium ions?

>The high solubility
>of iron chlorides prevents the reaction from coming to a screeching
>halt due to precipitated of hydrous iron oxides and basic acetates.

Surely excess acetic acid does the same thing?

>There is no oxidation or reduction reaction at this point.
>
>That iron complex will oxidize iron metal. The simplified net reaction
>is
>
>2Fe+3 + Fe(0) --> 3Fe+2

Only when exposed to atmospheric oxygen, No?

>This reaction is one that you don't want to happen because that Fe(0)
>is the iron metal you presumably are trying to recover rust free. This
>also should suggest to you why you should keep oxygen (air) out of the
>solution.

Yep.

>Fe+2 is oxidized to Fe+3 by oxygen and the reaction takes place
>readily because of the stability of the iron(III)-chloride complex. If
>you allow air into the process you will be producing more Fe+3 which
>in turn reacts with the iron metal (see the above reaction). If you
>bubbled air through the solution this process will continue until you
>run out of iron metal or the process gets bogged down by
>precipitation. It is this reaction which will give you an etch line at
>the liquid surface. Why?...because that is where the oxygen is.

Yep.

>This process works well with Fe203, less well with Fe304.

Magnetite is quite resistant to any attack.
It usually just falls to the bottom as a black sludge IME.

>Since the concern about using chloride has been mentioned I will
>address that issue as well. The chloride will be pretty well rinsed
>off of the surface. The freshly cleaned iron surface is quite reactive
>and needs some type of protection. If you keep iron dry it won't rust.
>WD-40 is not a good option as it will pick up water.

WD-40 surely repels water. I suggest that heavily pitted iron which
has had salt solution soaking into the pits will be quite difficult to
rinse clean.

>Chloride can remain in microscopic cracks where it can accelerate
>stress corrosion.

That's what I said.
I thought you were contradicting this above.

> If you are cleaning up an I-beam for a bridge this
>process might not be a good choice. If you are cleaning a wrench e.g.
>that is not an antique I wouldn't worry about stress corrosion.

Further corrosion? I would certainly not want that.
Wrenches in my hands suffer extreme stress. I've broken several :)

>If I
>am cleaning some tool that the kids left out in the rain I probably
>will dunk it in a 5% solution of muriatic acid, rinse it and apply a
>light wax.

Hooley Dooley, how long will that last? What's wrong with a quick
squirt of CRC or WD 40 and a wipe with a rag?

>If you have a valuable antique get some advice from someone else as
>cleaning may not be appropriate.

And certainly don't use hydrochloric acid (shudder) or salt and
vinegar. Save the latter for your fish and chips :)

>Why not use vinegar without the chloride? Vinegar is ~5% acetic acid.
>Now for a little of the requested math. The dissociation constant of
>HAc (acetic acid) is ~10^-5. (Ten to the minus five) In simplified
>terms the H+ concentration in solution times the Ac-1 equals ten to
>the minus five. Since the H+ = Ac-1 the acetate and the hydrogen ion
>concentration in 5% acetic acid will equal the square root of 10^-5 or
>somewhere around .02 molar. If someone wants to be picky it actually
>calculates to be a tad more concentrated. That concentration of
>hydrogen ions won't keep trivalent iron in solution.

So you're saying that acetic acid won't dissolve Fe2O3?
It does for me. The label of my vinegar does not list sodium chloride.

>This thread has stirred up some interest. I will stick with it at
>least for a while. Let's see if this answers some of the questions or
>if I have everyone more confused.

I'm still struggling with your claim that ferric acetate in excess
acetic acid is unstable.
If you say that the sodium chloride keeps it in solution and stops it
precipitaing out as ~ ferric hydroxide, then that is not my
experience. I end up with a dirty yellow solution when I soak rust in
vinegar. I have never used salt in the vinegar, but next time I have
need to clean some rust, I will try with and without, to see if the
claimed speed increase occurs, or you claim of precipitation of ferric
hydroxide occurs and does not occur.

Museums soak very rusty items in sodium hydroxide solutions.
I believe this just stops further corrosion until the rust can be
removed by other means.

DW

"Dan White"

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

13/05/2004 8:21 AM


"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> On the other hand, the acetate ion is of course a molecule and not a
single ion.

Minor correction: it is a single ion, just not a single atom.

dwhite

AD

Andy Dingley

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

10/05/2004 1:26 AM

On Sat, 8 May 2004 06:02:31 -0700, "Paul O." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Did a google for rust removal and saw a few references for removal of
>lightly rusted hand tools using table salt and vinegar.

Bad idea.

It doesn't work especially well.

It's _really_ risky on some copper-based alloys, especially bronzes.
You do _not_ want to start chloride-based corrosion on bronzes, as it
can be impossible to stop this afterwards.

Acid processes around ferrous materials are likely to give colour
changes (mainly darkening). You may find this useful, if you _want_ to
blacken things.

If you're cleaning ferrous metals, go for cathodic electrolysis. It's
easy to do, hard to get wrong, non-damaging and works really well.

For ferrous, a citric acid technique is commonplace (mainly for
museum-grade work on _really_ damaged items, particularly iron rather
than steel. IMHE, electrolysis is much simpler and works as well.

For brass or other cuprous alloys, a vinegar soak alone can be useful.
Don't leave it too long, or you'll find the brass de-zincs and turns
pinc.

--
Smert' spamionam

bR

[email protected] (Robert Bonomi)

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

08/05/2004 4:27 PM

In article <[email protected]>,
Paul O. <[email protected]> wrote:
>Did a google for rust removal and saw a few references for removal of
>lightly rusted hand tools using table salt and vinegar. Any of you use this
>method? If this works would like to try it before scrounging up the parts
>for electrolytic rust removal. How much vinegar and salt do you mix with
>water? Thanks.

salt and any mild acid -- vinegar, lemon juice, etc. -- is extremely effective
at cleaning up oxidized copper. takes off the oxidization, without touching
the 'clean' metallic copper. I'm not sure of the entire chemical reaction,
but one of the byproducts is copper chloride, *bright* blue.

I'm guessing the situation with iron is similar, i.e.
iron oxide + salt ==> iron chloride + ??

I've used salt + lemon juice on copper cookware, for many years. lemon juice
straight out of the bottle, enough to wet the surface, and just sprinkle some
salt on. doesn't take a lot. The reaction is fairly quick -- seconds, to a
few tens of seconds. a single grain of salt seems to work over an area about
half the diameter of a penny. for heavy oxidation, a paper towel thoroughly
wetted with lemon juice, laid on the item, and then sprinkle some salt on.
The _nice_ thing about cleaning copper this way is that it is a 'self-limiting'
reaction. When the oxide is gone, things _stop_.


I've never played with the technique on iron,, but I'm guessing that iron
reacts considerably more slowly.

cC

[email protected] (Charles Erskine)

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

14/05/2004 9:18 AM

More than you probably wanted to know:

http://yarchive.net/metal/rust_remove.html

<snip>

DW

"Dan White"

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

13/05/2004 2:10 PM


"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 08:21:20 GMT, "Dan White"
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
> >
> >"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> On the other hand, the acetate ion is of course a molecule and not a
> >single ion.
> >
> >Minor correction: it is a single ion, just not a single atom.
> >
> >dwhite
>
> Yep, it's big, but this surely only matters when it has to associate
> with a cation. Crystalisation.

But steric hindrance is not a phenomenon reserved only to the crystalization
of compounds. There are several kinds of hindrance, and they don't all have
to do with crystallization. I don't think it really matters anyway because
the acetate ion probably isn't nearly large enough. It was just a thought.

dwhite

RM

"Rob Mills"

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

09/05/2004 10:08 AM


"Jim Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>> What no one has discussed yet is the fact that it darkens the iron a
lot.<<<<

I would think that it might work something like bluing a gun. RM~


DW

"Dan White"

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

13/05/2004 2:07 PM


"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 07:31:37 GMT, "Dan White"
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
> >"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <[email protected]>, Sandy
> >> >> ><> says...
> >> >> >> I'm wondering why the salt. It surely does nothing but perhaps
cause
> >> >> >> problems later on.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >See your friendly local chemistry professor :-).
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you not know what it does?
> >> >> I've got a fairly reasonable handle on chemistry, and I can't see
what
> >> >> the salt is there for. The acetic acid will dissolve rust, and
slowly
> >> >> dissolve iron. No need for the salt unless you know of a good
reason.
> >> >> Please expound.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >
> >Sandy - I provided that rather long post that you responded to yesterday.
I
> >deleted it because of its size, and most of it is unrelated to your
> >question. Also, you should realize (if you didn't) that I was passing on
an
> >article written by someone and didn't add any of my own thoughts, since I
> >have forgotten so much chemistry I didn't want to dust off the brain
cells.
> >However, after reading your correct responses to his article, I had some
> >thoughts that might possibly help, although I don't have a proven answer
to
> >your question. :(
> >
> >Let me say that I agree that the driving force in the reaction to
dissolve
> >the iron oxide is the hydronium ion, and formation of water on the right
> >side of the equilibrium. I think the answer to why you have to add salt
to
> >the mix is that the salt increases the ionic strength of the solution.
This
> >improves the conductivity of the solution, and might have the effect of
> >improving the rate of reaction by allowing an easier transfer of charges
> >among the reacting ions. I know this is a bit vague, but I don't know if
> >anybody has a really good answer on this.
> >
> >On the other hand, I recall that the equilibrium constant is really based
on
> >the activity of the ions in solution, and not their concentration. At
> >higher ionic strengths (due to salt addition), I believe the activity,
and
> >therefore, the equilibrium constant, is lower than it would be without
the
> >salt. It seems to me this would tend to lower the dissociation of the
> >acetic acid, and bind up even more H+ than without the salt. I think if
> >this is correct, that it isn't the prevailing factor as I believe the
salt
> >does increase the reaction rate.
> >
> >I think the case of cleaning your copper pots is similar to the rust
issue.
> >In that case, if you pour vinegar on the copper pot with the oxides on
it,
> >you won't see much if anything happen. When you sprinkle salt on the
> >surface wetted with vinegar, you quickly see the oxides disappear from
the
> >spots where the salt is dissolving. It is very clear that salt does
speed
> >the rate of reaction in the case of copper oxides, and I have to think it
> >does the same with iron oxides.
> >
> >If you don't believe salt does anything, it is simple enough to test for
> >yourself on two equal rusty spots. As to "why" it works, I have to think
it
> >is because of improved migration of electrons through solution due to the
> >higher ionic strength of the solution. You might find, for example, that
it
> >takes two weeks to do the job with acetic acid alone, and one day with
the
> >salt added. Whatever problems you say the salt may cause later on may be
> >outweighted by the time factor. Of course it is also possible
(probable?)
> >that the acid alone will not only take longer, but might in fact not
remove
> >as much oxide in the end.
> >
> >I had one other thought, improbable as it may be: I'd say the Fe3+ ion
is
> >relatively large compared to the Cl- ion. On the other hand, the acetate
> >ion is of course a molecule and not a single ion. Maybe there is also a
bit
> >of steric hindrance going on as well. With no Cl- present, all the Fe3+
has
> >to bond with the acetate molecule (3 of them). If there is some
difficulty
> >fitting 3 of these molecules on one Fe ion, the reaction could be
inhibited.
> >If free Cl- is present, it could more quickly and easily neutralize the
Fe
> >ion and move the molecule away from the reacting area.
> >
> >regards,
> >dwhite
> >
>
> Interesting thoughts, Dan. This discussion has certainly disturbed
> some old cobwebs in my attic :)
> Gotta be over 40 years since that happened, although my daughter is
> doing some elementary chem at night school and my helping her is also
> raising the dust.
>
> I don't disbelieve that it helps matters, but I just can't quite
> understand why, although you have given me some food for thought.
> I have never tested it, although as it happens, I had a rusty steel
> band on a hose fiting that I wanted to remove and so stuck it in a
> glass of white vinegar overnight. It cleaned the rust off enough to
> show me that there was so much metal left that it needed the grinder
> to get it off.
>
> I can't really buy the conductivity argument, as what needs to happen
> is the migration of H+ to the rust and the migration away from it of
> iron ions.
>
> I also can't buy the spatial problem of the size of acetate ions, coz
> the stuff is all in solution, and not forming crystals.
>
> BTW, the problems later with soaking a piece of rusty steel in salt
> solution is that the salt gets trapped in the fine pits of the rusted
> surface and later attracts moisture and THEN the conductivity of this
> solution exposed to oxygen continues the corrosion at a pace.
>
> Anyways, thanks for the stimulating discussion :)
>

Ditto! All I can say is that the presence of ions in solution, ionic
strength, does definitely affect how species in solution react. Maybe there
is some physical chemistry website or ng you can visit and ask this
question. I'd be interested to know, too!

dwhite

So

Sandy

in reply to "Dan White" on 13/05/2004 2:07 PM

17/05/2004 3:22 PM

On Mon, 17 May 2004 05:29:09 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> posted:

>
>"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 17 May 2004 04:44:41 GMT, "Dan White"
>> <[email protected]> posted:
>>
>> >
>> >"Unknown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:30:02 GMT, "Dan White"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >,;
>> >> >,;"Charles Erskine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >,;news:[email protected]...
>> >> >,;> More than you probably wanted to know:
>> >> >,;>
>> >> >,;> http://yarchive.net/metal/rust_remove.html
>> >> >,;>
>> >> >,;> <snip>
>> >> >,;
>> >> >,;This is the post I pasted in this thread originally to try and
>answer
>> >the
>> >> >,;original question.
>> >>
>> >> OK I missed your original post. I wrote the article you refer to. I am
>> >> a chemist and do know what is happening in this procedure so let's
>> >> start fresh.
>> >>
>> >> What is it that needs more clarification on this topic? You ask the
>> >> questions and I will try to give a reasonable explanation.
>> >
>> >I had a feeling you were the same person as the original post I pasted.
>> >Sandy had the original question and I was trying to help. The only thing
>I
>> >still don't understand is exactly what the "complex" is that drives the
>> >Fe203 to dissociate and reform this complex with Cl-. Is it some kind of
>> >hydrated Fe complexed with Cl-?
>> >
>> >thanks,
>> >dwhite
>> >
>>
>> Thanks Dan, that's my question exactly.
>> I can't see the difference between a ferric chloride complex and a
>> ferric acetate complex. The thing that drives the reaction in my
>> understanding is 6H+ + Fe2O3 --> 2Fe+++ + 3H2O
>> That formation of water is what moves the reaction to the right.
>> For me, salt is just going to cause problems down the line when it
>> sets up corrosion cells in the fine interstices of the previous rust
>> pitting. Unless someone can show that it is invaluable in the
>> derusting process with weak acids, I would advise to stay well away
>> from it. As I said, I far prefer mechanical derusting with a non-polar
>> solvent (kerosene or CRC) for anything valuable. YMMV
>
>Just 2 comments:
>
>1. It may just be that my chemistry was so long ago, but I'm not sure of the
>usage of the term "complex" in this context. Are we calling an FeCl3
>molecule a complex (I didn't think so)?

I guess it might be some sort of hydrated "complex". Like most ionic
species in aqueous solution. Our understanding of "complexes" seems to
coincide, although that's possibly and artifact of the age of our
chemistry learning (me ~ 45 years :)

>My recollection is that a complex
>had more to do with Van der Walls forces attracting surrounding molecules
>such as the solvent to the ion or molecule in question, as if it were
>chelated or sequestered. What is the complex that results from the
>rust-chloride reaction?

That's the nub, I suspect, and why it is purportedly different from a
similar acetate "complex".

>2. You have to admit that the NaCl is greatly accelerating the reaction
>rate.

I can't disagree with you here, (never having tried it), but have
difficulty in explaining it to myself. I just hate salt!! It has
screwed up masses of our ag land and costs society squillions in
damage to just about everything. If it can be avoided, I will avoid
it. I once had a car at the beach where the radiator fell apart on the
outside (all the fins disappeared) while the inside was perfect.

>Just do like I mentioned and sprinkle salt on a copper pan wetted
>with vinegar. You will see the fastest reaction where the salt is. It
>seems you are looking at this from the standpoint that salt does nothing,
>and are challenging someone to prove otherwise.

Well no, but then copper is a different kettle of fish, being on the
other side of hydrogen in the electrochemical reactivity series.
Next time my wife asks me to get rid of some rust stains, and I have
no CLR (another weak organic acid sold for the purpose of removing
lime deposits and rust stains) I will try acetic acid with NaCl and
without. Stop watch and clip board at the ready! :)

>I think we are both
>interested in the same thing, but maybe are looking at it from different
>standpoints.

Or fairly similar standpoints. I see the downside of introducing salt
to rusted metal, having lived near the beach for a long time.

kn

kenR

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

09/05/2004 11:00 AM

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> I know nothing of chemistry so my questions are(1) When disposing of this
> stuff, anything in particular to worry about? (2) When storing, is a metal
> coffee can ok, should the container be vented? Don't want to use this
> mixture in anything that it will eventually eat thru. Thanks all for your
> help and advice.
>

I just store the stuff in the original vinegar container (labeled and in
the garage of course).

As for disposal, I just put the used stuff down the drain. The
ingredients are foodstuffs after all. The used mixture can stain from
the rust, so you do need to be careful that way.

DW

"Dan White"

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

13/05/2004 11:46 PM


"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> But what I meant by "ask a chemist" is that a friend of mine who
> is a chemist said that the vinegar and salt combined to form a
> weak hydrochloric acid. I took his word for it.
>

I think Sandy's point on this was that the H+ ions are already in solution
from the acetic acid. The presence of Cl- ions doesn't change anything
related to acid strength. For instance, it does not change the dissociation
constant for acetic acid, thereby increasing the H+ concentration. It is
the H+ concentration that determines how strong the acid is. My point was
that the activity of the ions in solution is decreased by the addition of a
lot of ions like Cl- and might actually lower the acidity. This does not
seem to be the predominant outcome, however, because the salt does increase
the speed of the reaction.

dwhite

KV

"Ken Vaughn"

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

09/05/2004 6:00 PM


"Paul O." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I know nothing of chemistry so my questions are(1) When disposing of this
> stuff, anything in particular to worry about? (2) When storing, is a metal
> coffee can ok, should the container be vented? Don't want to use this
> mixture in anything that it will eventually eat thru. Thanks all for your
> help and advice.
> --
> Paul O.
> [email protected]
>
>

I store mine in the 1 gallon plastic containers that the vinegar came in. I
don't think you would want to store it in a metal container. I haven't
disposed of mine yet, but I would think you could neutralize the weak acid
(vinegar) with baking soda. Coffee cans rust pretty quickly with just plain
water -- I use one with water for cooling lathe tools when I grind them --
it looks pretty rusty.

--
Ken Vaughn
Visit My Workshop: http://home.earthlink.net/~kvaughn65/

JM

"Jim Martin"

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

09/05/2004 8:23 AM


Hi Paul

As others have said, it works fine. What no one has discussed yet is the
fact that it darkens the iron a lot. Like to a dark brown color.

I don't really like that color for the surface of my jointer but I don't
dislike enough to have the tables ground.

Good luck,

Jim

"Paul O." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Did a google for rust removal and saw a few references for removal of
> lightly rusted hand tools using table salt and vinegar.

PO

"Paul O."

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

09/05/2004 8:58 AM


I know nothing of chemistry so my questions are(1) When disposing of this
stuff, anything in particular to worry about? (2) When storing, is a metal
coffee can ok, should the container be vented? Don't want to use this
mixture in anything that it will eventually eat thru. Thanks all for your
help and advice.
--
Paul O.
[email protected]

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

16/05/2004 11:21 PM

Sandy wrote:

> On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:15:37 -0500, Unknown <[email protected]>
> posted:
>
>>On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:04:26 -0700, Larry Blanchard
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>,;In article <[email protected]>,
>>>,;[email protected] says...
>>>,;> Ditto! All I can say is that the presence of ions in solution, ionic
>>>,;> strength, does definitely affect how species in solution react.
>>>Maybe there ,;> is some physical chemistry website or ng you can visit
>>>and ask this
>>>,;> question. I'd be interested to know, too!
>>>,;>
>>>,;Wow! I didn't mean to start such a learned discussion :-). My
>>>,;knowledge of chemistry is limited to making various explosive
>>>,;compounds, learned long ago in my juvenile days. And lately, I
>>>,;think I've forgotten most of that - CRS seting in :-).
>>>,;
>>>,;But what I meant by "ask a chemist" is that a friend of mine who
>>>,;is a chemist said that the vinegar and salt combined to form a
>>>,;weak hydrochloric acid. I took his word for it.
>>
>>You shouldn't have as he was wrong.
>>
>>Vinegar is approximately 5% acetic acid plus some other goodies to
>>provide some taste. The hydrogen ion concentration is not sufficient
>>to react with metallic iron and therein lies one of the keys to the
>>process. The other key is the fact that chloride ions form a stable
>>complex with iron ions in solution. The iron chloride complex is
>>strong enough so that iron oxide will dissolve and form that complex.
>>Since there is no oxidant strong enough to react with iron metal the
>>net result is that the iron oxide goes into solution as the chloride
>>but the iron metal does not react.
>>
>>It is essential that the solution be kept oxygen free or the metal
>>will dissolve. This is particularly noticeable if you allow the metal
>>to be "derusted" to stick out of the solution into air e.g. you will
>>find that there has been a dissolution of iron metal at the air liquid
>>interface.
>>
>>The role of the acetic acid is to keep the solution acidic enough to
>>prevent the precipitation of iron oxide but low enough so that iron
>>metal does not react with hydrogen ions. It is the high concentration
>>of chloride that removes the rust not a "weak hydrochloric acid".
>
> How so exactly?
> Iron acetate is surely soluble enough?
>
>>If one used a concentrated salt solution without the acetic acid then
>>one would get a preciptate of hydrous iron oxide at the surface. This
>>would slow the reaction to a crawl.
>
> Um, surely without the hydrogen ions, you are not going to get any
> dissolution of anything in the first place. All you need is an anion
> along with the H+ that does not form an insoluble precipitate with the
> resulting iron ions.
>
>>A weak acid such as acetic acid allows one to put a lot of acid in the
>>solution but maintain a relatively low hydrogen concentration.
>
> Yep, that's what "weak" means wrt acids and bases.
>
>>The solution if kept covered can be used repeatedly until the amount
>>of dissolved iron reaches a point where the hydrous oxide begins to
>>precipitate.
>
> Where you have infact neutralised all the acetic acid present.
>
>>If the used solutions are left open to the air then it
>>will accumulate ferric chloride as a result of air oxidation.
>
> No, it will remain a solution of iron ions, acetate ions, sodium ions
> and chloride ions. The iron ions will slowly precipitate to iron
> hydroxide complexes as the final H+ ions are used up. No?
>
>>That
>>ferric chloride is an oxidizing agent strong enough to react with iron
>>metal which is the reason one gets an "etch line" at the liquid
>>surface.
>
> Yes, if what you had was ferric chloride. You don't. You have a
> neutral solution of the ions I just mentioned, surely.

You keep asking this question over and over. First, if you have ions they
are not "neutral". By definition an ion is electrically charged, hence it
is reactive. The solution is neutral because for each cation there is a
matching anion with the opposite charge, but the ions themselves are not
neutral at all. Second, chlorine is one of the most reactive of all
elements, hence any reaction involving chlorine will proceed at a higher
rate than one involving acetate. The end result is that by putting some
chlorine ions in the solution you end up with a faster reaction.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

So

Sandy

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

13/05/2004 9:58 AM

On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:43:42 -0700, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> posted:

>In article <[email protected]>, Sandy
><> says...
>> I'm wondering why the salt. It surely does nothing but perhaps cause
>> problems later on.
>>
>See your friendly local chemistry professor :-).

Do you not know what it does?
I've got a fairly reasonable handle on chemistry, and I can't see what
the salt is there for. The acetic acid will dissolve rust, and slowly
dissolve iron. No need for the salt unless you know of a good reason.
Please expound.

So

Sandy

in reply to Sandy on 13/05/2004 9:58 AM

17/05/2004 9:24 AM

On Fri, 14 May 2004 06:02:58 -0500, Unknown <[email protected]>
posted:

>On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:56:58 GMT, "Dan White"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>,;
>>,;"Unknown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>,;news:[email protected]...
>>,;> On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:04:26 -0700, Larry Blanchard
>>,;> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>,;>
>>,;> >,;In article <[email protected]>,
>>,;> >,;[email protected] says...
>>,;> >,;> Ditto! All I can say is that the presence of ions in solution, ionic
>>,;> >,;> strength, does definitely affect how species in solution react.
>>,;Maybe there
>>,;> >,;> is some physical chemistry website or ng you can visit and ask this
>>,;> >,;> question. I'd be interested to know, too!
>>,;> >,;>
>>,;> >,;Wow! I didn't mean to start such a learned discussion :-). My
>>,;> >,;knowledge of chemistry is limited to making various explosive
>>,;> >,;compounds, learned long ago in my juvenile days. And lately, I
>>,;> >,;think I've forgotten most of that - CRS seting in :-).
>>,;> >,;
>>,;> >,;But what I meant by "ask a chemist" is that a friend of mine who
>>,;> >,;is a chemist said that the vinegar and salt combined to form a
>>,;> >,;weak hydrochloric acid. I took his word for it.
>>,;>
>>,;> You shouldn't have as he was wrong.
>>,;>
>>,;> Vinegar is approximately 5% acetic acid plus some other goodies to
>>,;> provide some taste. The hydrogen ion concentration is not sufficient
>>,;> to react with metallic iron and therein lies one of the keys to the
>>,;> process. The other key is the fact that chloride ions form a stable
>>,;> complex with iron ions in solution. The iron chloride complex is
>>,;> strong enough so that iron oxide will dissolve and form that complex.
>>,;> Since there is no oxidant strong enough to react with iron metal the
>>,;> net result is that the iron oxide goes into solution as the chloride
>>,;> but the iron metal does not react.
>>,;
>>,;Can you explain exactly what this iron-chloride complex is? Are you saying
>>,;that the iron oxide (rust) is preferentially breaking it's molecular bonds
>>,;and is reforming as some kind of complex, or as iron chloride? I take it
>>,;that it is not iron chloride because you say below that if oxygen is
>>,;introduced, then ferric chloride will form. Second question: What is the
>>,;reaction that transforms this "iron chloride complex" into ferric chloride?
>
>Both ferrous ions and ferric ions form stable chloride complexes.

Much like stable acetate complexes?

>Stable enough so that the rust does dissolve in the strong chloride
>solution by breaking iron-oxygen bonds.

Just like in acetic acid solutions?

>When the rust dissolves in a
>chloride solution

Where does this ever happen? Surely the rust dissolves in a solution
of H+ with a non-precipitating anion?

>one will get a solution which contains both species.
>In the presence of metallic iron the ferric chloride (from dissolution
>of iron III in rust) will be reduced to ferrous chloride so when the
>reaction is done we have a ferrous chloride in solution. If one adds
>oxygen (from air) then the ferrous is oxidized to ferric and this
>ferric immediately reacts with the metallic iron. The result is that
>one dissolves more metallic iron than is necessary and probably more
>than one wants.

Yep, the acidic solutioss speed up the atmospheric corrosion process.

>In general you don't usually find three different oxidation states of
>an element present in solution at the same time. The highest oxidation
>state (ferric in this case) tends to react with the lowest (iron
>metal) to equilibrate with the one in the middle (ferrous). If you
>keep adding more air to form more ferric it should be obvious that the
>above reaction will continue until you run out of iron or oxygen. You
>can run out of oxygen by keeping the pot covered and the piece
>immersed.

Yep. Basic measures to stop atmospheric corrosion.

>Usually the quantity of rust dissolved is small in comparisons to the
>mass of iron metal so one doesn't notice the fact that some iron metal
>is sacrificed in this procedure.

Which is why I personally would prefer mechanical derusting procedures
in ethe medium of non-polar solvents that tend to prevent further
corrosion.

>If you allow air into the mix the
>effect of dissolved oxygen can be very apparent. You can demonstrate
>this by letting a piece of iron be partially immersed in the solution.
>You will get an etch line at the liquid surface. If it is some antique
>you are restoring this etch line will not be a pleasant sight and will
>be almost impossible to fix.

Yep! Sad!

>>,;Your mechanisms sound interesting, but it's hard to know if this is the
>>,;actual path without knowing the driving forces mathematically.
>
>It is nice that the correct chemistry is also interesting.

Isn't the correct chemistry always the most interesting? :)

>If you need the math lookup some coordination chemistry text books at
>a technical library. The topic is probably not of that much interest
>for this group. Google "coordination chemistry" with the quotes will
>give you a good start. Probably more than you ever wanted to know.

Ayup.

>>,;dwhite
>>,;
>>,;
>>,;
>>,;>
>>,;> It is essential that the solution be kept oxygen free or the metal
>>,;> will dissolve. This is particularly noticeable if you allow the metal
>>,;> to be "derusted" to stick out of the solution into air e.g. you will
>>,;> find that there has been a dissolution of iron metal at the air liquid
>>,;> interface.
>>,;>
>>,;> The role of the acetic acid is to keep the solution acidic enough to
>>,;> prevent the precipitation of iron oxide but low enough so that iron
>>,;> metal does not react with hydrogen ions. It is the high concentration
>>,;> of chloride that removes the rust not a "weak hydrochloric acid".
>>,;>
>>,;> If one used a concentrated salt solution without the acetic acid then
>>,;> one would get a preciptate of hydrous iron oxide at the surface. This
>>,;> would slow the reaction to a crawl.
>>,;>
>>,;> A weak acid such as acetic acid allows one to put a lot of acid in the
>>,;> solution but maintain a relatively low hydrogen concentration.
>>,;>
>>,;> The solution if kept covered can be used repeatedly until the amount
>>,;> of dissolved iron reaches a point where the hydrous oxide begins to
>>,;> precipitate. If the used solutions are left open to the air then it
>>,;> will accumulate ferric chloride as a result of air oxidation. That
>>,;> ferric chloride is an oxidizing agent strong enough to react with iron
>>,;> metal which is the reason one gets an "etch line" at the liquid
>>,;> surface.
>>,;>
>>,;>
>>,;

Ud

Unknown

in reply to Sandy on 13/05/2004 9:58 AM

16/05/2004 6:50 PM

On 14 May 2004 09:18:21 -0700, [email protected] (Charles
Erskine) wrote:

>,;More than you probably wanted to know:
>,;
>,;http://yarchive.net/metal/rust_remove.html

Thanks for the reference to an article I wrote several years ago. I
had forgotten about that.

That eamil address is not valid any longer.

So

Sandy

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

17/05/2004 9:21 AM

On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:15:37 -0500, Unknown <[email protected]>
posted:

>On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:04:26 -0700, Larry Blanchard
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>,;In article <[email protected]>,
>>,;[email protected] says...
>>,;> Ditto! All I can say is that the presence of ions in solution, ionic
>>,;> strength, does definitely affect how species in solution react. Maybe there
>>,;> is some physical chemistry website or ng you can visit and ask this
>>,;> question. I'd be interested to know, too!
>>,;>
>>,;Wow! I didn't mean to start such a learned discussion :-). My
>>,;knowledge of chemistry is limited to making various explosive
>>,;compounds, learned long ago in my juvenile days. And lately, I
>>,;think I've forgotten most of that - CRS seting in :-).
>>,;
>>,;But what I meant by "ask a chemist" is that a friend of mine who
>>,;is a chemist said that the vinegar and salt combined to form a
>>,;weak hydrochloric acid. I took his word for it.
>
>You shouldn't have as he was wrong.
>
>Vinegar is approximately 5% acetic acid plus some other goodies to
>provide some taste. The hydrogen ion concentration is not sufficient
>to react with metallic iron and therein lies one of the keys to the
>process. The other key is the fact that chloride ions form a stable
>complex with iron ions in solution. The iron chloride complex is
>strong enough so that iron oxide will dissolve and form that complex.
>Since there is no oxidant strong enough to react with iron metal the
>net result is that the iron oxide goes into solution as the chloride
>but the iron metal does not react.
>
>It is essential that the solution be kept oxygen free or the metal
>will dissolve. This is particularly noticeable if you allow the metal
>to be "derusted" to stick out of the solution into air e.g. you will
>find that there has been a dissolution of iron metal at the air liquid
>interface.
>
>The role of the acetic acid is to keep the solution acidic enough to
>prevent the precipitation of iron oxide but low enough so that iron
>metal does not react with hydrogen ions. It is the high concentration
>of chloride that removes the rust not a "weak hydrochloric acid".

How so exactly?
Iron acetate is surely soluble enough?

>If one used a concentrated salt solution without the acetic acid then
>one would get a preciptate of hydrous iron oxide at the surface. This
>would slow the reaction to a crawl.

Um, surely without the hydrogen ions, you are not going to get any
dissolution of anything in the first place. All you need is an anion
along with the H+ that does not form an insoluble precipitate with the
resulting iron ions.

>A weak acid such as acetic acid allows one to put a lot of acid in the
>solution but maintain a relatively low hydrogen concentration.

Yep, that's what "weak" means wrt acids and bases.

>The solution if kept covered can be used repeatedly until the amount
>of dissolved iron reaches a point where the hydrous oxide begins to
>precipitate.

Where you have infact neutralised all the acetic acid present.

>If the used solutions are left open to the air then it
>will accumulate ferric chloride as a result of air oxidation.

No, it will remain a solution of iron ions, acetate ions, sodium ions
and chloride ions. The iron ions will slowly precipitate to iron
hydroxide complexes as the final H+ ions are used up. No?

>That
>ferric chloride is an oxidizing agent strong enough to react with iron
>metal which is the reason one gets an "etch line" at the liquid
>surface.

Yes, if what you had was ferric chloride. You don't. You have a
neutral solution of the ions I just mentioned, surely.


DW

"Dan White"

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

14/05/2004 3:56 AM


"Unknown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:04:26 -0700, Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >,;In article <[email protected]>,
> >,;[email protected] says...
> >,;> Ditto! All I can say is that the presence of ions in solution, ionic
> >,;> strength, does definitely affect how species in solution react.
Maybe there
> >,;> is some physical chemistry website or ng you can visit and ask this
> >,;> question. I'd be interested to know, too!
> >,;>
> >,;Wow! I didn't mean to start such a learned discussion :-). My
> >,;knowledge of chemistry is limited to making various explosive
> >,;compounds, learned long ago in my juvenile days. And lately, I
> >,;think I've forgotten most of that - CRS seting in :-).
> >,;
> >,;But what I meant by "ask a chemist" is that a friend of mine who
> >,;is a chemist said that the vinegar and salt combined to form a
> >,;weak hydrochloric acid. I took his word for it.
>
> You shouldn't have as he was wrong.
>
> Vinegar is approximately 5% acetic acid plus some other goodies to
> provide some taste. The hydrogen ion concentration is not sufficient
> to react with metallic iron and therein lies one of the keys to the
> process. The other key is the fact that chloride ions form a stable
> complex with iron ions in solution. The iron chloride complex is
> strong enough so that iron oxide will dissolve and form that complex.
> Since there is no oxidant strong enough to react with iron metal the
> net result is that the iron oxide goes into solution as the chloride
> but the iron metal does not react.

Can you explain exactly what this iron-chloride complex is? Are you saying
that the iron oxide (rust) is preferentially breaking it's molecular bonds
and is reforming as some kind of complex, or as iron chloride? I take it
that it is not iron chloride because you say below that if oxygen is
introduced, then ferric chloride will form. Second question: What is the
reaction that transforms this "iron chloride complex" into ferric chloride?

Your mechanisms sound interesting, but it's hard to know if this is the
actual path without knowing the driving forces mathematically.

dwhite



>
> It is essential that the solution be kept oxygen free or the metal
> will dissolve. This is particularly noticeable if you allow the metal
> to be "derusted" to stick out of the solution into air e.g. you will
> find that there has been a dissolution of iron metal at the air liquid
> interface.
>
> The role of the acetic acid is to keep the solution acidic enough to
> prevent the precipitation of iron oxide but low enough so that iron
> metal does not react with hydrogen ions. It is the high concentration
> of chloride that removes the rust not a "weak hydrochloric acid".
>
> If one used a concentrated salt solution without the acetic acid then
> one would get a preciptate of hydrous iron oxide at the surface. This
> would slow the reaction to a crawl.
>
> A weak acid such as acetic acid allows one to put a lot of acid in the
> solution but maintain a relatively low hydrogen concentration.
>
> The solution if kept covered can be used repeatedly until the amount
> of dissolved iron reaches a point where the hydrous oxide begins to
> precipitate. If the used solutions are left open to the air then it
> will accumulate ferric chloride as a result of air oxidation. That
> ferric chloride is an oxidizing agent strong enough to react with iron
> metal which is the reason one gets an "etch line" at the liquid
> surface.
>
>

DW

"Dan White"

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

14/05/2004 4:30 PM


"Charles Erskine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> More than you probably wanted to know:
>
> http://yarchive.net/metal/rust_remove.html
>
> <snip>

This is the post I pasted in this thread originally to try and answer the
original question.

thanks,
dwhite

DW

"Dan White"

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

13/05/2004 2:26 AM

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:43:42 -0700, Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Sandy
> ><> says...
> >> I'm wondering why the salt. It surely does nothing but perhaps cause
> >> problems later on.
> >>
> >See your friendly local chemistry professor :-).
>
> Do you not know what it does?
> I've got a fairly reasonable handle on chemistry, and I can't see what
> the salt is there for. The acetic acid will dissolve rust, and slowly
> dissolve iron. No need for the salt unless you know of a good reason.
> Please expound.
>

A quick search turned up this. This guy says it pretty well. The bottom
line is that the dissolution of the rust is prompted by the presence of
acetate and chloride ions. Iron would rather form a molecule with acetate
or chloride ions, which are soluble in water than remain as iron oxide,
which is insoluble. It is easy to introduce chloride in the form of salt,
and greatly increase the rate of reaction. The acid component of the
solution apparently does not take part in the dissolution of the rust (but
does dissolve the pure iron). It prevents the iron ions from reforming into
iron hydroxides, which are insoluble as is the original iron oxide (rust).

dwhite
From: [email protected] (Don Wilkins)
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
Subject: Re: Rust
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 01:35:37 GMT

On 2 Apr 1999 13:49:14 GMT, [email protected] (James W.
Swonger) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Grant Erwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Muriatic acid works fine on rusty steel. It attacks the rust a lot
>>faster than
>>the steel.

As a chemist my first choice is hydrochloric acid as a solvent for
rust. Muriatic acid is readily available from the local hardware
stores. Yes it will also dissolve iron so you don't want to dump the
parts in and come back next week to see if the rust is dissolved.

>> ...
>>Vinegar alone is just a slower and milder form of the above. Commercial
>>pickling (submersion in a hot bath of a combination of strong acids) is
>>a more extreme version of the above.

I guess I want to mildly disagree with this. Vinegar is about 5%
acetic acid and also contains various organic stuff to provide some
taste but which are not particularly essential to the derusting.
Acetic acid is a weak acid and is going to behave differently than
hydrochloric acid.

The acetate ion forms soluble complexes with iron in solution which
aids in the dissolution. Since acetic acid is a weak acid there will
be a lot of the acetate ion tied up as undissociated acetic acid.

Hydrochloric acid is a strong acid and will be essentially completely
dissociated. The chloride ion forms a stable complex with trivalent
iron. It is the stability of this complex which aids in dissolving the
iron oxide (rust).

The addition of sodium chloride to the vinegar provides the extra
complexing power of the chloride to this mixture.


>>I'm not sure what happens chemically with salt and vinegar. I've only
>>used it to clean coppers, brasses and bronzes where if it works it is
>>like magic.

The chloride and/or the acetate ions form stable complexes with iron
ions which aids in the dissolution of rust. The trivalent iron forms
much more stable complexes which would lead one to believe that the
solutions would be more effective with e.g. Fe2O3 than with lower
oxides. Those tenacious black oxides are more dense and usually
contain divalent iron oxide.

> The combination gives you a mild hydrochloric acid with other junk
>floating in it.
>
>H+
>Na+
>Cl-
>CH3COO- (acetate)

Well sort of but there will also be a fair amount of undissociated
acetic acid.

>The acetate might give you some buffering effect, perhaps.
>I've seen acetic acid as an additive in a couple of electroplating
>recipes.

Yes but the buffering is not important in this case.

>The active principle is the HCl. For the copper based materials,
>it converts the insoluble oxides to soluble chlorides. I expect
>the same activity is responsible for iron cleaning.

In principle it is the same but it is the complexing power of the
anions (chloride and acetate) which drive the reaction. It needs to be
acidic enough to prevent the precipitation of the very insoluble iron
hydroxides. Other than that the hydrogen ion does not participate in
the dissolution of the rust. The hydrogen ion concentration does
contribute to the speed at which the metallic iron disappears.

There have been extensive discussions of an electrolytic method in the
past which I have stayed clear of. In that case it appears that the
rust removal is accomplished by creating hydrogen gas underneath the
rust coating and 'blasting" it off. This would explain why some of
those black dense oxide coatings are not removed.

The electrolytic method should not remove much metallic iron but on
the other hand what ever is on the surface as rust and gets "blasted"
off is not likely to be redeposited as metallic iron back on the piece
from the same location from which it originated.

In other words what is turned to rust ain't gonna get put back where
it once was.



Search for Google's copy of this article
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

From: [email protected] (Don Wilkins)
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
Subject: Re: Rust
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 18:25:07 GMT

On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 12:04:33 -0600, "Don Foreman"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>> >. It needs to be
>> > acidic enough to prevent the precipitation of the very insoluble iron
>> > hydroxides. Other than that the hydrogen ion does not participate in
>> > the dissolution of the rust. The hydrogen ion concentration does
>> > contribute to the speed at which the metallic iron disappears.
>
>Does this mean that using stronger acetic acid probably would not speed
rust
>removal but may increase rate of attack on steel?

I probably should say I don't know the answer to this question. My
opinion not backed by any research is that the 5% concentration of
acetic acid in vinegar probably isn't the optimum concentration. I ran
through some equations below to show why increasing the acetic acid
concentration doesn't increase the hydrogen ion concentration at the
same rate as occurs with hydrochloric acid. At 5% acetic acid I doubt
if the hydrogen ion concentration is high enough to dissolve iron.


Rust is already oxidized iron so when it is dissolved there is no
requirement for a change in oxidation state. When you dissolve the
metal (any metal) into an aqueous solution the metal is oxidized. If
the metal is oxidized then something must be reduced. If there is
nothing there to be reduced then the metal won't be oxidized.

In the mixtures under discussion (hydrochloric acid solutions or
vinegar-salt) there are three things present in the solution to serve
as oxidizing agents. These are the hydrogen ions from the acid, the
oxygen dissolved in the solution, and ferric iron.

So if you increase the hydrogen ion concentration then there will be
an increase in the dissolution of the metal (in this case iron). This
will be very apparent when a strong acid is used such as hydrochloric
acid because all of the acid is ionized.

Acetic acid however is a weak acid so an increase in the concentration
of this acid does not increase the hydrogen ion concentration
proportionally. If you look at the equation for the ionization of
acetic acid

HAc <----> (H+) + (Ac-) one finds that there is an equilibrium
constant for that dissociation

(H+) (Ac-)/ (HAc) = ~10^-5

since (H+) = (Ac-)

(H+) = square root of (HAc)*10^-5

With that it is obvious that increasing the acetic acid concentration
is not going to cause a rapid increase in the dissolution of iron
metal.

Who ever came up with the addition of chloride ion did so to provide
something to form a complex with the dissolved iron among other
things. If you look at that equation above for the dissociation it is
obvious that if they had added acetate ion (e.g. sodium acetate) it
would have reduced the hydrogen ion concentration probably causing
precipitation of iron compounds. Clever idea for kitchen chemicals.

On the other hand there are other reactions which will come into play
once the process is started.

As most of you know ferric chloride can be quite corrosive and is a
pretty good etching agent. The ferric chloride produced from the
dissolved rust is going to look at that freshly produced iron metal
surface as a nice place to do some etching (dissolve iron metal).

Of course there will be some divalent iron present as well. This will
come either from the rust or by the reaction of the ferric chloride
with the metallic iron.

Oxygen (from air) dissolved in the solution will oxidize the ferrous
ions up to ferric. This ferric can then react again with metallic
iron. If you don't want to dissolve iron metal then you should remove
air from the procedure. A little bit of ferric chloride in a sodium
chloride solution with a continuous supply of oxygen can dissolve one
hell of a lot of iron.

I hope this hasn't confused the issue more than it helped. I suspect
that one could make a better rust removal solution using glacial
acetic acid, water, and sodium chloride. I believe the formula was
developed because of the ready availability of vinegar and salt. I
would vary the chloride concentration as well as the acetic acid
concentration. If you don't want to dissolve iron metal keep oxygen
out of the process.

If you are inclined to do this be careful with glacial acetic acid. It
doesn't burn or cause immediate discomfort on the skin but if not
removed promptly will cause large thick patches of skin to come off
leaving tender exposed meat. This is a type of chemical burn that you
are not likely to get more than once.

As I read and reread this post I am not entirely satisfied but there
is some very complex chemistry taking place and it is not easy to
describe it in a short note.


DW

"Dan White"

in reply to "Dan White" on 13/05/2004 2:26 AM

17/05/2004 4:44 AM


"Unknown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:30:02 GMT, "Dan White"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >,;
> >,;"Charles Erskine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >,;news:[email protected]...
> >,;> More than you probably wanted to know:
> >,;>
> >,;> http://yarchive.net/metal/rust_remove.html
> >,;>
> >,;> <snip>
> >,;
> >,;This is the post I pasted in this thread originally to try and answer
the
> >,;original question.
>
> OK I missed your original post. I wrote the article you refer to. I am
> a chemist and do know what is happening in this procedure so let's
> start fresh.
>
> What is it that needs more clarification on this topic? You ask the
> questions and I will try to give a reasonable explanation.

I had a feeling you were the same person as the original post I pasted.
Sandy had the original question and I was trying to help. The only thing I
still don't understand is exactly what the "complex" is that drives the
Fe203 to dissociate and reform this complex with Cl-. Is it some kind of
hydrated Fe complexed with Cl-?

thanks,
dwhite

Ud

Unknown

in reply to "Dan White" on 13/05/2004 2:26 AM

16/05/2004 6:56 PM

On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:30:02 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>,;
>,;"Charles Erskine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>,;news:[email protected]...
>,;> More than you probably wanted to know:
>,;>
>,;> http://yarchive.net/metal/rust_remove.html
>,;>
>,;> <snip>
>,;
>,;This is the post I pasted in this thread originally to try and answer the
>,;original question.

OK I missed your original post. I wrote the article you refer to. I am
a chemist and do know what is happening in this procedure so let's
start fresh.

What is it that needs more clarification on this topic? You ask the
questions and I will try to give a reasonable explanation.

So

Sandy

in reply to "Dan White" on 13/05/2004 2:26 AM

17/05/2004 8:01 PM

On Mon, 17 May 2004 06:40:06 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> posted:

>Sandy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 May 2004 23:21:33 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> posted:
>>
>>>Sandy wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:15:37 -0500, Unknown <[email protected]>
>>>> posted:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:04:26 -0700, Larry Blanchard
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>,;In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>,;[email protected] says...
>>>>>>,;> Ditto! All I can say is that the presence of ions in solution,
>>>>>>ionic ,;> strength, does definitely affect how species in solution
>>>>>>react. Maybe there ,;> is some physical chemistry website or ng you can
>>>>>>visit and ask this
>>>>>>,;> question. I'd be interested to know, too!
>>>>>>,;>
>>>>>>,;Wow! I didn't mean to start such a learned discussion :-). My
>>>>>>,;knowledge of chemistry is limited to making various explosive
>>>>>>,;compounds, learned long ago in my juvenile days. And lately, I
>>>>>>,;think I've forgotten most of that - CRS seting in :-).
>>>>>>,;
>>>>>>,;But what I meant by "ask a chemist" is that a friend of mine who
>>>>>>,;is a chemist said that the vinegar and salt combined to form a
>>>>>>,;weak hydrochloric acid. I took his word for it.
>>>>>
>>>>>You shouldn't have as he was wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>Vinegar is approximately 5% acetic acid plus some other goodies to
>>>>>provide some taste. The hydrogen ion concentration is not sufficient
>>>>>to react with metallic iron and therein lies one of the keys to the
>>>>>process. The other key is the fact that chloride ions form a stable
>>>>>complex with iron ions in solution. The iron chloride complex is
>>>>>strong enough so that iron oxide will dissolve and form that complex.
>>>>>Since there is no oxidant strong enough to react with iron metal the
>>>>>net result is that the iron oxide goes into solution as the chloride
>>>>>but the iron metal does not react.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is essential that the solution be kept oxygen free or the metal
>>>>>will dissolve. This is particularly noticeable if you allow the metal
>>>>>to be "derusted" to stick out of the solution into air e.g. you will
>>>>>find that there has been a dissolution of iron metal at the air liquid
>>>>>interface.
>>>>>
>>>>>The role of the acetic acid is to keep the solution acidic enough to
>>>>>prevent the precipitation of iron oxide but low enough so that iron
>>>>>metal does not react with hydrogen ions. It is the high concentration
>>>>>of chloride that removes the rust not a "weak hydrochloric acid".
>>>>
>>>> How so exactly?
>>>> Iron acetate is surely soluble enough?
>>>>
>>>>>If one used a concentrated salt solution without the acetic acid then
>>>>>one would get a preciptate of hydrous iron oxide at the surface. This
>>>>>would slow the reaction to a crawl.
>>>>
>>>> Um, surely without the hydrogen ions, you are not going to get any
>>>> dissolution of anything in the first place. All you need is an anion
>>>> along with the H+ that does not form an insoluble precipitate with the
>>>> resulting iron ions.
>>>>
>>>>>A weak acid such as acetic acid allows one to put a lot of acid in the
>>>>>solution but maintain a relatively low hydrogen concentration.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, that's what "weak" means wrt acids and bases.
>>>>
>>>>>The solution if kept covered can be used repeatedly until the amount
>>>>>of dissolved iron reaches a point where the hydrous oxide begins to
>>>>>precipitate.
>>>>
>>>> Where you have infact neutralised all the acetic acid present.
>>>>
>>>>>If the used solutions are left open to the air then it
>>>>>will accumulate ferric chloride as a result of air oxidation.
>>>>
>>>> No, it will remain a solution of iron ions, acetate ions, sodium ions
>>>> and chloride ions. The iron ions will slowly precipitate to iron
>>>> hydroxide complexes as the final H+ ions are used up. No?
>>>>
>>>>>That
>>>>>ferric chloride is an oxidizing agent strong enough to react with iron
>>>>>metal which is the reason one gets an "etch line" at the liquid
>>>>>surface.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, if what you had was ferric chloride. You don't. You have a
>>>> neutral solution of the ions I just mentioned, surely.
>>>
>>>You keep asking this question over and over.
>>
>> Perhaps because I've not seen a satisfactory answer yet, and the
>> person who wrote that article quoted, has asked to state the query
>> again?
>>
>>>First, if you have ions they
>>>are not "neutral".
>>
>> Huh? Sodium chloride solution is neutral.
>>
>>>By definition an ion is electrically charged, hence it
>>>is reactive.
>>
>> Got nothing to do with chemical neutrality, sorry.
>>
>>>The solution is neutral because for each cation there is a
>>>matching anion with the opposite charge, but the ions themselves are not
>>>neutral at all.
>>
>> I never said ions were neutral -- I was talking about the solution.
>> The solution MUST be electrically neutral, but chemical neutrality has
>> to do with balance between H+ and OH- in the solution.
>
>"The solution" is not what reacts with the rust. What reacts with the rust
>is individual ions within that solution.

So?
What ions are you claiming react with the rust (other than H+)?
Can you give balanced equations for this?

>>>Second, chlorine is one of the most reactive of all
>>>elements,
>>
>> There is NO elemental chorine involved, sorry.
>
>So what is a chlorine ion floating around with its electrical charge exposed
>if not "elemental chlorine"?

A chlorine ion!
Elemental chlorine with an extra electron!
And electrons are what give chemical moieties their chemical
properties.

> What comes in contact with the rust is not
>sodium and chlorine bound, it's individual sodium ions and individual
>chlorine ions.

Which apparently have no effect?
The dissolution/neutralisation of Fe2O3 is by H+ ions, surely.

>>>hence any reaction involving chlorine will proceed at a higher
>>>rate than one involving acetate.
>>
>> See above. The chloride ion is arguably more stable than the acetate
>> ion.
>
>I thought we were talking chemistry here, not physics.

I am talking chemistry. What are you referring to?

>A monatomic ion is
>not "stable" or "unstable" chemically--that's a property of a compound.

Why?
A chloride ion is more stable (less likely to change its chemical
state) than an acetate ion. A fluoride ion is even MORE stable!
Elemental chlorine and fluorine are most UNSTABLE.
Stability is, afterall, the ability to resist (chemical) change.

>>>The end result is that by putting some
>>>chlorine ions in the solution you end up with a faster reaction.
>>
>> Sorry, your premises are wrong so your conclusion is not sound.
>
>No, your understanding of what constitutes an ion is so wrong that you can't
>follow the argument.

Ummm, OK. Could you explain then what constitutes and ion?
There is no argument. What we need explaining is why the presence of
sodium chloride in the vinegar is advantageous.

So

Sandy

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:01 PM

17/05/2004 10:48 PM

On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:39:46 GMT, alexy <[email protected]>
posted:

>Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 17 May 2004 12:06:40 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
>>>>There is no argument. What we need explaining is why the presence of
>>>>sodium chloride in the vinegar is advantageous.
>>>
>>>Nah. What we need to know is whether or not it WORKS.
>>
>>Speak for yourself. If that satisfies you, then I'm happy for you :)
>>Until you understand it, you won't know whether it works or not.

>Disagree. One can observe a cause and effect repeatedly and draw valid
>conclusions without understanding the mechanism.

Disagree. If you don't understand the mechanism, or the rationale, you
are very likely to cock it up when things don't go exactly as
expected. Especially with complex procedures.
That's why they teach theory in all trade courses.

>Folks knew that
>dropping a stone on their foot would hurt long before Newton and an
>understanding of the nervous system (and do we yet fully understand
>the mechanism of gravity, or just have more sophisticated observations
>about it?) Charlie's point is valid; all we NEED to know is whether it
>works.

And does it? Charlie will likely never be quite sure.
Someone has to figure out how it works to be able to do it
competently. Not much is likely to go wrong with your strange hobby of
dropping rocks on your foot, I would have thought. Now chemical
procedures...

>I'm with you in fascination with understanding why it works,
>but that understanding is a want more than a need.

Again I disagree. So many things can go wrong with things chemical. So
many things waiting to bite you on the ass. DAMHIKT.

>>>I, like most woodwrkers,
>>>am not a chemist.
>>
>>Are woodworkers prevented from being chemists?

>Reread the sentence you quoted.

Yes, and what point is it trying to make? Charlie is not a chemist, so
woodworkers don't need to know any chemistry? Well if that's how he
feels, why is he whining about our discussion about derusting tools?

>>I'm not a chemist, but I have wide interests in many areas.
>>I know several chemists who are woodworkers. Will you tell them, or
>>should I?

>Tell them what? That most woodworkers are not chemists? You tell them.
>I hate the "you idiot" stares I sometimes get when stating the
>obvious.

See above.

>>>Like most woodworkers, I have some tools that I either buy
>>>with rust on them, or that are particularly susceptible to rust under certain
>>>conditions.
>>
>>If they were mine, and I valued them, I would not use salt and vinegar
>>on them. This comes from my understanding of chemistry.

>Why? What are the bad effects predicted by your understanding of
>chemistry, and do they prove out in practice?

Yep. Salt will enter the fine pits and interstices of the corroded
surface and perpetuate future corrosion. Very difficult to clean
thoroughly. There was a guy once who ignored chemistry and
shot-blasted his aluminium boat with copper shot. It lasted but a few
weeks. Chemistry is VERY important!

>>>Somewhere about 5 posts ago, an OT should have been added to this thread.
>>
>>Why? Is it not pertinent to restoring woodworking tools?

>Yes. I agree that it is not OT.

So Charlie is being selfish in complaining about the discussion we are
having?

>>I suggest you are being selfish :)

>I suggest that he is stating his interest.

Why? In a thread that he is complaining about being irrelevant?
Sounds like "dog in the manger" to me.

So

Sandy

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:01 PM

18/05/2004 11:38 AM

On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:33:17 GMT, alexy <[email protected]>
posted:

>Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Disagree. One can observe a cause and effect repeatedly and draw valid
>>>conclusions without understanding the mechanism.
>>
>>Disagree. If you don't understand the mechanism, or the rationale, you
>>are very likely to cock it up when things don't go exactly as
>>expected. Especially with complex procedures.
>
>LOL! Do you really think that the inorganic chemistry involved in the
>derusting process is more complex than the operation of the
>gravitational force and the organic chemistry and electrical processes
>involved in the sensing, transmittal, and interpretation of the pain
>signal?

Nope, and I don't think I said it was.
What I said was the steps involved and decisions needed to implement
the procedures are more complex in the derusting example.
Dropping a rock on your foot is rather simple, but derusting an object
requires many step decisions and step understandings.

>Understanding theory does help immensely, when deviating from
>experience, but empirical evidence can be adequate for some instances,
>such as derusting some particular steel.

Which particular steel? How do you tell what kind of steel? So many
decisions :)
With the rock example, you don't even have to decide what kind of
rock, or which foot to drop it on :)

>Where I see theoretical
>knowledge of the mechanism helping is knowing how it might work on a
>different alloy, how different solutions might work if the known one
>is not available, predicting long-term effects if evidence is not
>available, etc.

Exactly, so the bottom line is, are you siding with my desire to
thrash out the chemistry involved so we can make rational process
decisions, or do you side with Charlie in objecting to the presence of
this discussion here because he does not want to understand anything
other than a simple recipe that allows for no rational deviation?

>>>Folks knew that
>>>dropping a stone on their foot would hurt long before Newton and an
>>>understanding of the nervous system (and do we yet fully understand
>>>the mechanism of gravity, or just have more sophisticated observations
>>>about it?) Charlie's point is valid; all we NEED to know is whether it
>>>works.
>>
>>And does it?

>I'd like to know.

So would I. That's why I asked the question, and enjoy reading and
absorbing the various learned responses I have gotten.
Charlie objects to this. God knows why he hasn't got the willpower or
tolerance to ignore what does not interest him, but feels the need to
stick his nose in and have a whinge.

>> Charlie will likely never be quite sure.
>>Someone has to figure out how it works to be able to do it
>>competently.

>No, I can quite competently grill a steak without understanding the
>physical and chemical changes taking place in the steak when it is
>heated.

And if your steak turns out tough, or not to the liking of some
consumers? I'm very interested in the biology of steak vis-a-vis the
cooking process. Our scientific/agricultural institutions are too, and
are studying the subject intensively.

>And a steak is, I would suggest, a far more complex object
>than a piece of rusted steel, and the processes involved are also more
>complex.

Not really, depends how deep you go into it.
The variation in treating a rusted article are far more diverse than
the heating of a steak, but even there, as I explained above there is
much process choice even with this simple (apparently) heating
process. I've cooked steak according to the "recipe" I knew, only to
have it turn out tough sometimes and perfect at other times.
I really need to research why this is.

>> Not much is likely to go wrong with your strange hobby of
>>dropping rocks on your foot, I would have thought. Now chemical
>>procedures...

>I'm sure you think they are more complex than the elemental forces of
>physics or biological systems. We might just have to agree to disagree
>on that! <g>

We are talking about two things. The complexity of the phenomenon, and
the complexity of the process that a human must undertake.
Dropping a rock on your foot is a simple process, whereas derusting a
rusty article is a complex process with many decisions to make.
Both have underlying phenomena that are equally complex, I would
argue. It's the decisions involved in the required steps of the
processes that differentiate these two.

>>>I'm with you in fascination with understanding why it works,
>>>but that understanding is a want more than a need.
>>
>>Again I disagree. So many things can go wrong with things chemical. So
>>many things waiting to bite you on the ass. DAMHIKT.

>Yep. Sometimes I overcook a steak, and wonder if a more thorough
>knowledge of the chemical changes going on in it might have kept me
>from getting a medium-well steak when I wanted it medium.

But as I said above, there is apparently much more to cooking steaks.
Starting from choosing the piece of meat from the butcher's display
case, apparently. I would like to learn more, and listen with interest
when I hear the CSIRO discussing their latest research.

>>>>>I, like most woodwrkers,
>>>>>am not a chemist.
>>>>
>>>>Are woodworkers prevented from being chemists?
>>
>>>Reread the sentence you quoted.
>>
>>Yes, and what point is it trying to make? Charlie is not a chemist, so
>>woodworkers don't need to know any chemistry?

>No. That he is not a chemist, and that most woodworkers are not
>chemists, and are probably more interested in whether it works than
>how it works.

>Do you disagree?

Yep. Close, but not my reading. His context was a complaint that this
discussion was irrelevant to this forum, and because he was not a
chemist, and couldn't follow it, it should not be discussed here.

>Do you really think that most woodworkers ARE
>chemists?

Of course not, and that was not the point that Charlie conveyed to me.
He was complaining about the presence of the discussion, remember.

>>>>If they were mine, and I valued them, I would not use salt and vinegar
>>>>on them. This comes from my understanding of chemistry.
>>
>>>Why? What are the bad effects predicted by your understanding of
>>>chemistry, and do they prove out in practice?
>>
>>Yep. Salt will enter the fine pits and interstices of the corroded
>>surface and perpetuate future corrosion. Very difficult to clean
>>thoroughly.

>That's good for part 1 of my question. And I believe I saw in another
>post that you were going to do an experiment to find out part 2? I'll
>be interested in hearing your results.

I did not mention an experiment regarding this. I have read much on
salt inclusions in rust pits, and the resident expert here mentioned
such in a girder for a bridge. I would not like to put all my weight
behind a rusty spanner that had been soaking in salt in a previous
life.

>> There was a guy once who ignored chemistry and
>>shot-blasted his aluminium boat with copper shot. It lasted but a few
>>weeks. Chemistry is VERY important!

>Absolutely! And this is an excellent example where theory is important
>to predicting the result of an untried process.

Exactly my point.

That's why I'm interested, and like you, think it is on topic and
worthwhile.

I'm rather pissed off at Charlie for butting in with his selfish
objections, and then pissing off, so to speak.

So

Sandy

in reply to Sandy on 18/05/2004 11:38 AM

20/05/2004 9:51 AM

On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:27:09 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> posted:

>First of all let me say that my interest in this thread, started by Sandy,

Nope, I merely interjected my question about the need for salt into an
already existing thread. But I see what you mean.

>was caused by my own questioning of why salt helped clean copper pots with
>vinegar. Months ago I poured vinegar on a copper pot and it did nothing.
>Then I sprinkled salt on, and the oxides just wiped away.

Wiped away with a cloth? The salt may have been acting as a scourer?
Copper is the other side of hydrogen in the electrochemical reactivity
table, so perhaps there is some difference here with iron?

> I figure whatever
>mechanism was working there is probably not that different from what happens
>with iron.

Except for what I said above.

>So on with my not-so-scientifically-controlled test:
>
>I didn't have any rusted nails, but I did find two old 1.25 lb free weights.
>These are 4" in diameter with a 1" hole for the barbell to go through. The
>annular region between this hole and the outer edge of the weight was
>recessed and could hold maybe a tablespoon worth of liquid, possibly more.
>The annular region was embossed with the manufacturer's name and the weight.
>Each weight was rusted moderately and had about the same amount of rust.
>This means that there is more rust than you could casually remove, but not
>so much that the weight had deep pits.
>
>I poured vinegar into both, and then added an excess of salt to one of them.
>Within hours, both were effervescing slightly. (They had bubbles collecting
>on the surface). Note that this was done in contact with air, and with
>plenty of surface area. After 48 hours I poured the liquid out of each into
>test tube like containers. What I observe is that the vinegar/salt sample
>was a light yellowish/orange color, and contained a fair amount of black
>flecks and little chunks, in addition to some very small black particles.
>On the other hand, the vinegar/no salt solution was a deep red color, very
>different from the vinegar/salt sample. It had no flecks or chunks of black
>material, but did have a fair amount of very fine, small black particles.
>In both cases, black material built up on the edges of the liquid, and also
>on some of the submerged surfaces.
>
>I cleaned the weights by hand

Now this is perhaps the most important step and you have not
elaborated. How did you clean these things? The salt crystals can act
as a scourer, so if you wiped them with a rag....

>and observed that the rust was gone from both,
>but the vinegar/salt weight looked SLIGHTLY cleaner. I then used a brass
>brush to clean them up further. After drying them out, it appears that the
>vinegar/salt weight is a little brighter looking. The vinegar only weight
>looks darker, as if there is dark material caught up in the fine pits and
>crevices of the weight.

Could be that more of the orange rust had dissolved leaving the black
magnetite (Fe3O4), and the salt and vinegar dissolved less of this
orange rust leaving it appearing lighter. Both my examples seem
minutely more orange (lighter colour) than the non treated parts of
the nails.

>Overall I'd say that there is a definite difference between the two as one
>liquid was light yellow or orange, and the other was deep red. The
>vinegar/salt weight also looked a little cleaner, but it is a very slight
>difference. It could be that these old weights just looked a little
>different from the start.
>
>What caused the red color in one and not the other? Is the iron chloride
>complex colorless, while FeCl3 is red?

I would guess that they are the same colour, containing the same
coloured ion Fe+++, but I'm not sure. I'm not even sure that this iron
chloride complex exists, as my question as to what happens to all that
excess Na+ was never answered.

My vinegar-only is definitely effervescing slightly more than the salt
and vinegar as seen this morning by swirling the bubbles away and
looking again in ten minutes for new bubbles to form.
Previously, effervescence appeared roughly similar and quite slight.

>Sorry for being long-winded. Hope this spurs some ideas.
>
>dwhite
>PS. I might add clean water to each next to see if there is any difference
>in corrosion rate as postulated by Sandy.

My reading suggests that the salt-treated article will rust more, even
if left dry. This is the problem, as the salt in the minute pits will
attract atmospheric moisture and act as electrolyte in minute
electrochemical cells. This will happen more in some alloys than
others.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My experiment was with very rusted nails.

The vinegar only solution is brown(orange) and the salt and vinegar is
pale yellow. Effervescence is still going ever more strongly (though
still quite weak) at 46 hours. There seems to be more black specks
floating in the salted version. This may have been due to an original
difference in the nails. Both have a few rust particles on the bottom
of the tumblers.
The nails are imperceptibly different from when I put them in the
solutions -- slightly more yellow where the solutions have acted, but
still very heavily rusted.

I found that salt perhaps inhibits the process slightly, (except,
perhaps, as a scourer when the article is wiped with a rag?)
I worry about that salt in the rust pits, and so personally would
bever use salt on anything of mine that I valued.

My conclusion is that this procedure is useless for heavily rusted
articles. And salt makes an insignificant difference.

A wire brush and/or electrolysis might be a better way to go.

Thanks for an interesting exchange, Dan.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dan:
>> > 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.

Sandy:
>> 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.
>>
>>
Sandy:
>> >> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> 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
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

cW

[email protected] (WillaimC)

in reply to Sandy on 18/05/2004 11:38 AM

20/05/2004 7:00 AM

Muriatic acid of the sort used for concrete work removes rust
completely and in a fairly short order. I dropped some fine thread
rusty bolts in this acid and left it overnight and the threads screwed
into the correct size nut with no problem so the metal was not eaten
away. The only posssible downside is that the metal is turned to an
even light grey, possibly from very light etching

Gg

"George"

in reply to Sandy on 18/05/2004 11:38 AM

20/05/2004 6:56 AM

Sodium salts are quite soluble versus iron, you know. You've had ion
replacement going on as well as reduction.

"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Yes, for sure that could be it. I was hoping not to relearn every
> electronegativity etc etc. :)
>
> It is interesting, though, to note that in my experiment the vinegar/salt
> solution was pale orange, while the vinegar only was deep red. I'm
> interested to see how it ends up in your test. There is *definitely*
> something different going on in each case, and it would be interesting to
> know what that is. I wonder if the vinegar only is dissolving more Fe
> metal, and is somehow inhibited by the salt. Maybe this needs to be done
in
> the absence of air, as the other poster suggested. Maybe the results
would
> be different.
>

So

Sandy

in reply to Sandy on 18/05/2004 11:38 AM

20/05/2004 10:11 AM

On Wed, 19 May 2004 17:36:16 -0400, "George" <george@least> posted:

>Check your inorganic chemistry books under electronegativity. Sodium's
>about as good as it gets, iron and copper not in the same league.

Although iron and copper straddle hydrogen, which is an important
watershed.
Very few sodium tools available :)

>Of
>course it helps to have a good acid electrolyte in your cell.

That would be acetic acid?
H+ is surely what you need to dissolve insoluble
carbonates/hydroxides/oxides?
(Along with an anion that does not have insoluble salts with the iron)

>Now try cleaning your silver with baking soda in an aluminum pan....

BBbbbbut the topic was rust :)

>"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> First of all let me say that my interest in this thread, started by Sandy,
>> was caused by my own questioning of why salt helped clean copper pots with
>> vinegar.
>

DW

"Dan White"

in reply to Sandy on 18/05/2004 11:38 AM

20/05/2004 3:05 AM

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >was caused by my own questioning of why salt helped clean copper pots
with
> >vinegar. Months ago I poured vinegar on a copper pot and it did nothing.
> >Then I sprinkled salt on, and the oxides just wiped away.
>
> Wiped away with a cloth? The salt may have been acting as a scourer?

The salt could be a scouring agent, but I don't think this is the main
benefit of salt. If you pour the salt on, you see small regions around each
grain where the rust is dissolving, even before you touch the pot with a
sponge.

> Copper is the other side of hydrogen in the electrochemical reactivity
> table, so perhaps there is some difference here with iron?
>
> > I figure whatever
> >mechanism was working there is probably not that different from what
happens
> >with iron.
>
> Except for what I said above.

Yes, for sure that could be it. I was hoping not to relearn every
electronegativity etc etc. :)


> >So on with my not-so-scientifically-controlled test:
> >
> >I didn't have any rusted nails, but I did find two old 1.25 lb free
weights.
> >These are 4" in diameter with a 1" hole for the barbell to go through.
The
> >annular region between this hole and the outer edge of the weight was
> >recessed and could hold maybe a tablespoon worth of liquid, possibly
more.
> >The annular region was embossed with the manufacturer's name and the
weight.
> >Each weight was rusted moderately and had about the same amount of rust.
> >This means that there is more rust than you could casually remove, but
not
> >so much that the weight had deep pits.
> >
> >I poured vinegar into both, and then added an excess of salt to one of
them.
> >Within hours, both were effervescing slightly. (They had bubbles
collecting
> >on the surface). Note that this was done in contact with air, and with
> >plenty of surface area. After 48 hours I poured the liquid out of each
into
> >test tube like containers. What I observe is that the vinegar/salt
sample
> >was a light yellowish/orange color, and contained a fair amount of black
> >flecks and little chunks, in addition to some very small black particles.
> >On the other hand, the vinegar/no salt solution was a deep red color,
very
> >different from the vinegar/salt sample. It had no flecks or chunks of
black
> >material, but did have a fair amount of very fine, small black particles.
> >In both cases, black material built up on the edges of the liquid, and
also
> >on some of the submerged surfaces.
> >
> >I cleaned the weights by hand
>
> Now this is perhaps the most important step and you have not
> elaborated. How did you clean these things? The salt crystals can act
> as a scourer, so if you wiped them with a rag....

I honestly don't think salt scouring had much to do with it. After I dumped
out the acid I ran them under water and literally rubbed them with my
fingers. It was really more of just brushing the black bits off the metal.
I think all the salt had dissolved in the acid after 48 hours, anyway. Now,
I next cleaned the weights with a brass brush, so that's where some scouring
comes in. Even so, the vinegar/salt weight was cleaner, but I wouldn't say
so conclusively. It really could just have been a difference in the two
weights from the start. If there were any scouring other than the brass
brush, it would probably be more from the bits of Fe2O3 or whatever it is
that turns black.

>
> >and observed that the rust was gone from both,
> >but the vinegar/salt weight looked SLIGHTLY cleaner. I then used a brass
> >brush to clean them up further. After drying them out, it appears that
the
> >vinegar/salt weight is a little brighter looking. The vinegar only
weight
> >looks darker, as if there is dark material caught up in the fine pits and
> >crevices of the weight.
>
snip
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> My experiment was with very rusted nails.
>
> The vinegar only solution is brown(orange) and the salt and vinegar is
> pale yellow. Effervescence is still going ever more strongly (though
> still quite weak) at 46 hours. There seems to be more black specks
> floating in the salted version. This may have been due to an original
> difference in the nails. Both have a few rust particles on the bottom
> of the tumblers.
> The nails are imperceptibly different from when I put them in the
> solutions -- slightly more yellow where the solutions have acted, but
> still very heavily rusted.
>
> I found that salt perhaps inhibits the process slightly, (except,
> perhaps, as a scourer when the article is wiped with a rag?)
> I worry about that salt in the rust pits, and so personally would
> bever use salt on anything of mine that I valued.
>
> My conclusion is that this procedure is useless for heavily rusted
> articles. And salt makes an insignificant difference.
>
> A wire brush and/or electrolysis might be a better way to go.
>

It is interesting, though, to note that in my experiment the vinegar/salt
solution was pale orange, while the vinegar only was deep red. I'm
interested to see how it ends up in your test. There is *definitely*
something different going on in each case, and it would be interesting to
know what that is. I wonder if the vinegar only is dissolving more Fe
metal, and is somehow inhibited by the salt. Maybe this needs to be done in
the absence of air, as the other poster suggested. Maybe the results would
be different.

> Thanks for an interesting exchange, Dan.
>
Ditto. You make a good point about salt corrosion. Good to know.

dwhite

cC

[email protected] (Charlie Self)

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:01 PM

17/05/2004 12:06 PM

Sandy writes:

>Why?
>A chloride ion is more stable (less likely to change its chemical
>state) than an acetate ion. A fluoride ion is even MORE stable!
>Elemental chlorine and fluorine are most UNSTABLE.
>Stability is, afterall, the ability to resist (chemical) change.
>
>>>>The end result is that by putting some
>>>>chlorine ions in the solution you end up with a faster reaction.
>>>
>>> Sorry, your premises are wrong so your conclusion is not sound.
>>
>>No, your understanding of what constitutes an ion is so wrong that you can't
>>follow the argument.
>
>Ummm, OK. Could you explain then what constitutes and ion?
>There is no argument. What we need explaining is why the presence of
>sodium chloride in the vinegar is advantageous.

Nah. What we need to know is whether or not it WORKS. I, like most woodwrkers,
am not a chemist. Like most woodworkers, I have some tools that I either buy
with rust on them, or that are particularly susceptible to rust under certain
conditions.

Somewhere about 5 posts ago, an OT should have been added to this thread.

Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

DW

"Dan White"

in reply to [email protected] (Charlie Self) on 17/05/2004 12:06 PM

19/05/2004 5:22 AM


"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:07:14 GMT, "Dan White"
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
> >There. Does that settle it? :)
>
>
> Settle what?

Hey, lighten up! :) 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.

dwhite

>
> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> 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
> >
>

So

Sandy

in reply to [email protected] (Charlie Self) on 17/05/2004 12:06 PM

19/05/2004 10:49 AM

On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:07:14 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> posted:

>There. Does that settle it? :)


Settle what?

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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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
>

JW

Jim Wilson

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:01 PM

18/05/2004 6:30 AM

Sandy wrote...
> Dropping a rock on your foot is a simple process, whereas derusting a
> rusty article is a complex process with many decisions to make.

Analogies aside, de-rusting a rusty article is not really a very complex
process, nor are there "many" decisions to make, at least not in my
understanding of "complex" and "many." Hyperbole, perhaps?

> Yep. Close, but not my reading. His context was a complaint that this
> discussion was irrelevant to this forum, and because he was not a
> chemist, and couldn't follow it, it should not be discussed here.

You must have misread, then. Alexy nailed it:

"That he is not a chemist, and that most woodworkers are not
chemists, and are probably more interested in whether it works than
how it works."

Additionally, Charlie's suggestion was that the discussion had drifted
far enough afield to warrant an "OT" in the subject line, not that it
shouldn't be discussed. Your "reading" goes a good bit beyond hyperbole;
it teeters precipitously toward mischaracterization.

Jim

cb

charlie b

in reply to Jim Wilson on 18/05/2004 6:30 AM

21/05/2004 9:32 AM

Sandy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 May 2004 09:51:42 +0800, Sandy <[email protected]> posted:
>
> Final report on the great Salt and Vinegar test :)
>
> Before I hoik it all out and consign the tumblers to the dishwasher, I
> thought I would describe conditions (About 75 hours, I think)

(major snippage)

Sir:

You have WAY too much spare time on your hands.

Having said that
The effervesence (sp?) may play an important role
in rust removal , small bubbles forming in fine nooks
and crannies of rust on the piece. As they get bigger
they can mechanically, rather than chemically, loosen
rust particles - similar to cavitation.

However you get the rust off with an aqueous (sp?)
solution, after rinsing and hand drying, wipe things
down with a paper towel soaked with alcohol. Wipe
things down again with a dry towel. The alcohol will
grab any water left after the first "wiped dry".

charlie b

kK

[email protected] (Ken Muldrew)

in reply to Jim Wilson on 18/05/2004 6:30 AM

21/05/2004 6:38 PM

Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:

>My conclusion is that although the vinegar and the salt-and-vinegar
>cause some of the loose rust to fall off the very rusty iron, the
>treated surface is by no means cleaned.

That's a shame, but salt and vinegar is delicious on chips!

Ken Muldrew
[email protected]
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)

DW

"Dan White"

in reply to Jim Wilson on 18/05/2004 6:30 AM

21/05/2004 8:20 PM

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> My conclusion is that although the vinegar and the salt-and-vinegar
> cause some of the loose rust to fall off the very rusty iron, the
> treated surface is by no means cleaned. The appearance is not even
> perceptibly changed. I can't determine if one works better than the
> other, but from the colours of the solution and the rust and the
> lesser effervescence, I would conclude the the salt impedes the
> dissolution process.

Interesting, despite what the others say! Your test about jives with my
results, the most notable difference being the nearly clear vinegar/salt
solution and the dark red (in my case) vinegar only solution. I would say
that the iron did come clean by using the vinegar solutions, but required
some brushing to really get all the rust off. I think it came cleaner than
it would have had I not used the vinegar, but maybe there are better
mechanical ways of doing that, or using a little muriatic acid and being
very quick to rinse it off.

dwhite

So

Sandy

in reply to Jim Wilson on 18/05/2004 6:30 AM

21/05/2004 3:08 PM

On Thu, 20 May 2004 09:51:42 +0800, Sandy <[email protected]> posted:

Final report on the great Salt and Vinegar test :)

Before I hoik it all out and consign the tumblers to the dishwasher, I
thought I would describe conditions (About 75 hours, I think)

The salt-and-vinegar solution has just about NO colour to it; it has
NO effervescence; and a black scum on the surface. The nails are no
different from before treatment except that they have gone blacker.
There is a an amount of rust flakes on the bottom.

The "vinegar-only" still has slight effervescence occurring, and is a
strong orange/red colour. The nails are no different except a little
more rusty coloured. There is a similar amount of rust flakes on the
bottom.

As a final twist, I decanted some of the clear orange liquid from the
vinegar-only solution and added excess salt. Lo and behold, a black
precipitate occurred turning the solution almost chocolate brown and
opaque. I will leave this to settle, coz what I'm trying to see is if
this purported ferric chloride complex is less orange than the
straight ferric ion. So far, half an hour, the red colour seems to be
persisting, so unless there is a marked loss of colour, that ferric
chloride complex has not been demonstrated. Although the lack of
colour in the vinegar-salt test could be because no ferric ions have
been formed at all, just black ?magnetite?

My conclusion is that although the vinegar and the salt-and-vinegar
cause some of the loose rust to fall off the very rusty iron, the
treated surface is by no means cleaned. The appearance is not even
perceptibly changed. I can't determine if one works better than the
other, but from the colours of the solution and the rust and the
lesser effervescence, I would conclude the the salt impedes the
dissolution process.

I will rinse these nails and stick them back out in the rain and see
which ones fall apart quicker.








>>and observed that the rust was gone from both,
>>but the vinegar/salt weight looked SLIGHTLY cleaner. I then used a brass
>>brush to clean them up further. After drying them out, it appears that the
>>vinegar/salt weight is a little brighter looking. The vinegar only weight
>>looks darker, as if there is dark material caught up in the fine pits and
>>crevices of the weight.
>
>Could be that more of the orange rust had dissolved leaving the black
>magnetite (Fe3O4), and the salt and vinegar dissolved less of this
>orange rust leaving it appearing lighter. Both my examples seem
>minutely more orange (lighter colour) than the non treated parts of
>the nails.
>
>>Overall I'd say that there is a definite difference between the two as one
>>liquid was light yellow or orange, and the other was deep red. The
>>vinegar/salt weight also looked a little cleaner, but it is a very slight
>>difference. It could be that these old weights just looked a little
>>different from the start.
>>
>>What caused the red color in one and not the other? Is the iron chloride
>>complex colorless, while FeCl3 is red?
>
>I would guess that they are the same colour, containing the same
>coloured ion Fe+++, but I'm not sure. I'm not even sure that this iron
>chloride complex exists, as my question as to what happens to all that
>excess Na+ was never answered.
>
>My vinegar-only is definitely effervescing slightly more than the salt
>and vinegar as seen this morning by swirling the bubbles away and
>looking again in ten minutes for new bubbles to form.
>Previously, effervescence appeared roughly similar and quite slight.
>
>>Sorry for being long-winded. Hope this spurs some ideas.
>>
>>dwhite
>>PS. I might add clean water to each next to see if there is any difference
>>in corrosion rate as postulated by Sandy.
>
>My reading suggests that the salt-treated article will rust more, even
>if left dry. This is the problem, as the salt in the minute pits will
>attract atmospheric moisture and act as electrolyte in minute
>electrochemical cells. This will happen more in some alloys than
>others.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>My experiment was with very rusted nails.
>
>The vinegar only solution is brown(orange) and the salt and vinegar is
>pale yellow. Effervescence is still going ever more strongly (though
>still quite weak) at 46 hours. There seems to be more black specks
>floating in the salted version. This may have been due to an original
>difference in the nails. Both have a few rust particles on the bottom
>of the tumblers.
>The nails are imperceptibly different from when I put them in the
>solutions -- slightly more yellow where the solutions have acted, but
>still very heavily rusted.
>
>I found that salt perhaps inhibits the process slightly, (except,
>perhaps, as a scourer when the article is wiped with a rag?)
>I worry about that salt in the rust pits, and so personally would
>bever use salt on anything of mine that I valued.
>
>My conclusion is that this procedure is useless for heavily rusted
>articles. And salt makes an insignificant difference.
>
>A wire brush and/or electrolysis might be a better way to go.
>
>Thanks for an interesting exchange, Dan.
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Dan:
>>> > 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.
>
>Sandy:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>Sandy:
>>> >> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>>> >> >> 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
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>

JW

Jim Wilson

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:01 PM

18/05/2004 3:49 PM

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

JW

Jim Wilson

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:01 PM

19/05/2004 4:49 AM

Sandy wrote...

<mucho snippage>

> Jim Wilson posted:
> ...
> >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 :-).
>
> Interesting that you think it is useless.
> I've found through my life, that one of the handiest bits of knowledge
> I carry around with me, is my basic chemistry.
> It helps in just about everything I do.

See the smiley? I was jesting about the discussion between you and me.
(G)

As regards the rest of your post, you've made your points and I've made
mine, so I guess we're done.

Cheers!

Jim

DW

"Dan White"

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:01 PM

18/05/2004 4:07 PM

There. Does that settle it? :)

dwhite

"Jim Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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

JW

Jim Wilson

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:01 PM

18/05/2004 10:19 PM

Dan White wrote...
> There. Does that settle it? :)

LOL! I figured everyone else had already bailed on the thread! (G)

Jim

So

Sandy

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:01 PM

19/05/2004 10:47 AM

On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:49:00 GMT, Jim Wilson <[email protected]>
posted:

>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)

No, but then I didn't introduce that comparison :)

>> 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)

Well it's approaching 24 hours and I've just had 9 hours' sleep and
the situation has not changed. Very pale yellow in the non-salt
vinegar, and if you have a really good imagination, a very,very pale
yellow in the salt vinegar. The nails have suffered NO observable
change.

>> 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.

So why did he go on to assert that our discussion was irrelevant?
Your explanation does not account for that.
Seems he should have kept his mouth shut if he was no longer
interested. There are many threads that I'm not interested in, and I
just ignore them. When our discussion/experiments are done, we should
have a clear conclusion as to whether it is at all efficaceous. With
or without salt. WTF is off topic about that? Sheeesh!

>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.

So it is decidedly NOT off topic as Charlie was asserting?
Look at the subject line. Many woodworkers are interested in deructing
old valuable tools, or so I've read here.

>An inconclusive, jargon-filled technical
>debate would have to have considerably less utility, wouldn't you agree?

No jargon in our discussion, sorry. Yes a few technical terms that are
easy to find out about if you don't already know, and all technical
subjects must have these terms and must deal with technicalities to
understand them. Understanding brings ability to adjust for different
circumstances, or so I find.
Someone suggested that salt was excellent in vinegar solution for
removing rust.
I queried this as my basic understanding of chemistry didn't tell me
why this would be so.
I've now done an experiment that shows that vinegar with and without
salt is virtually useless in derusting rusty ferrous metal.
I always followed this in practice (never having had any successs with
vinegar in the past few times I've tried it.)
Adding salt makes no difference if you are generous. In my experiment,
it was less effective than just the plain vinegar.

>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.

On what ground?
It was NOT Off Topic. More than one of us was interested in it.
And it was to do with derusting woodworking tools as per the subject
header.
And then what was the overall aim of his message?
To have a whinge, No?

>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 :-).

Interesting that you think it is useless.
I've found through my life, that one of the handiest bits of knowledge
I carry around with me, is my basic chemistry.
It helps in just about everything I do.

>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 his point? Can't they just ignore it?
I take it as read, that not every reader here is interested in every
topic. I ignore most of them. I don't interject that the topic is OT.

>and 2) the thread has
>drifted off topic for this NG.

Which it patently hasn't. The subject header says it all.

>I still want to hear it.

Then, by definition, it is ON topic.

I read Charlies message as someone being selfish and wanting no
discussions that either he couldn't follow, or that he was not
interested in. He should have ignored it, like most other rational
posters obviously did. Does he often play "NetCop"?

aa

alexy

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:01 PM

17/05/2004 3:33 PM

Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Disagree. One can observe a cause and effect repeatedly and draw valid
>>conclusions without understanding the mechanism.
>
>Disagree. If you don't understand the mechanism, or the rationale, you
>are very likely to cock it up when things don't go exactly as
>expected. Especially with complex procedures.

LOL! Do you really think that the inorganic chemistry involved in the
derusting process is more complex than the operation of the
gravitational force and the organic chemistry and electrical processes
involved in the sensing, transmittal, and interpretation of the pain
signal?

Understanding theory does help immensely, when deviating from
experience, but empirical evidence can be adequate for some instances,
such as derusting some particular steel. Where I see theoretical
knowledge of the mechanism helping is knowing how it might work on a
different alloy, how different solutions might work if the known one
is not available, predicting long-term effects if evidence is not
available, etc.

>>Folks knew that
>>dropping a stone on their foot would hurt long before Newton and an
>>understanding of the nervous system (and do we yet fully understand
>>the mechanism of gravity, or just have more sophisticated observations
>>about it?) Charlie's point is valid; all we NEED to know is whether it
>>works.
>
>And does it?
I'd like to know.

> Charlie will likely never be quite sure.
>Someone has to figure out how it works to be able to do it
>competently.
No, I can quite competently grill a steak without understanding the
physical and chemical changes taking place in the steak when it is
heated. And a steak is, I would suggest, a far more complex object
than a piece of rusted steel, and the processes involved are also more
complex.

> Not much is likely to go wrong with your strange hobby of
>dropping rocks on your foot, I would have thought. Now chemical
>procedures...
I'm sure you think they are more complex than the elemental forces of
physics or biological systems. We might just have to agree to disagree
on that! <g>
>
>>I'm with you in fascination with understanding why it works,
>>but that understanding is a want more than a need.
>
>Again I disagree. So many things can go wrong with things chemical. So
>many things waiting to bite you on the ass. DAMHIKT.
Yep. Sometimes I overcook a steak, and wonder if a more thorough
knowledge of the chemical changes going on in it might have kept me
from getting a medium-well steak when I wanted it medium.
>
>>>>I, like most woodwrkers,
>>>>am not a chemist.
>>>
>>>Are woodworkers prevented from being chemists?
>
>>Reread the sentence you quoted.
>
>Yes, and what point is it trying to make? Charlie is not a chemist, so
>woodworkers don't need to know any chemistry?
No. That he is not a chemist, and that most woodworkers are not
chemists, and are probably more interested in whether it works than
how it works.
Do you disagree? Do you really think that most woodworkers ARE
chemists?


>>>If they were mine, and I valued them, I would not use salt and vinegar
>>>on them. This comes from my understanding of chemistry.
>
>>Why? What are the bad effects predicted by your understanding of
>>chemistry, and do they prove out in practice?
>
>Yep. Salt will enter the fine pits and interstices of the corroded
>surface and perpetuate future corrosion. Very difficult to clean
>thoroughly.
That's good for part 1 of my question. And I believe I saw in another
post that you were going to do an experiment to find out part 2? I'll
be interested in hearing your results.

> There was a guy once who ignored chemistry and
>shot-blasted his aluminium boat with copper shot. It lasted but a few
>weeks. Chemistry is VERY important!
Absolutely! And this is an excellent example where theory is important
to predicting the result of an untried process.


--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

So

Sandy

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:01 PM

17/05/2004 8:27 PM

On 17 May 2004 12:06:40 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
posted:

>Sandy writes:
>
>>Why?
>>A chloride ion is more stable (less likely to change its chemical
>>state) than an acetate ion. A fluoride ion is even MORE stable!
>>Elemental chlorine and fluorine are most UNSTABLE.
>>Stability is, afterall, the ability to resist (chemical) change.
>>
>>>>>The end result is that by putting some
>>>>>chlorine ions in the solution you end up with a faster reaction.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, your premises are wrong so your conclusion is not sound.
>>>
>>>No, your understanding of what constitutes an ion is so wrong that you can't
>>>follow the argument.
>>
>>Ummm, OK. Could you explain then what constitutes and ion?
>>There is no argument. What we need explaining is why the presence of
>>sodium chloride in the vinegar is advantageous.
>
>Nah. What we need to know is whether or not it WORKS.

Speak for yourself. If that satisfies you, then I'm happy for you :)
Until you understand it, you won't know whether it works or not.

>I, like most woodwrkers,
>am not a chemist.

Are woodworkers prevented from being chemists?
I'm not a chemist, but I have wide interests in many areas.
I know several chemists who are woodworkers. Will you tell them, or
should I?

>Like most woodworkers, I have some tools that I either buy
>with rust on them, or that are particularly susceptible to rust under certain
>conditions.

If they were mine, and I valued them, I would not use salt and vinegar
on them. This comes from my understanding of chemistry.

>Somewhere about 5 posts ago, an OT should have been added to this thread.

Why? Is it not pertinent to restoring woodworking tools?
I suggest you are being selfish :)

cC

[email protected] (Charlie Self)

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:27 PM

17/05/2004 1:37 PM

Sandy responds:

>>
>>Nah. What we need to know is whether or not it WORKS.
>
>Speak for yourself. If that satisfies you, then I'm happy for you :)
>Until you understand it, you won't know whether it works or not.

Nonsense. What you're saying is that if you don't understand the mechanisms of
flight, you don't know that there are aircraft overhead.

>Are woodworkers prevented from being chemists?
>I'm not a chemist, but I have wide interests in many areas.
>I know several chemists who are woodworkers. Will you tell them, or
>should I?
>

Nothing to tell them. I know chemists, electrical engineers, computer
programmers and a host of other tech types. So what? Where did I say that
chemists shouldn't be woodworkers, incidentally?

>
>If they were mine, and I valued them, I would not use salt and vinegar
>on them. This comes from my understanding of chemistry.

Well, I probably won't either, but that's because I have used electrolysis for
years.

>
>>Somewhere about 5 posts ago, an OT should have been added to this thread.
>
>Why? Is it not pertinent to restoring woodworking tools?
>I suggest you are being selfish :)

How is a thread on ionization and covalents and whatever else pertinent to
restoring woodworking tools?

It won't matter to me, as I've just trashed this thread, but the fact is, none
of you seems capable of snipping, and there is absolutely no way for an average
woodworker to tell which of you guys is full of beans, so there's not much
value here to the woodworker. It remains a choice that may or may not work. And
that may or may not damage tools because of the presence of salt. Depends on
which of you a person chooses to believe, because there has been no coherent
and definitive explanation by anyone.

If that makes me selfish, so be it. If you think that's a new cutesy on my
name, then you're about 400 years behind the times there.


Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

So

Sandy

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:27 PM

17/05/2004 10:29 PM

On 17 May 2004 13:37:10 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
posted:

>Sandy responds:
>
>>>
>>>Nah. What we need to know is whether or not it WORKS.
>>
>>Speak for yourself. If that satisfies you, then I'm happy for you :)
>>Until you understand it, you won't know whether it works or not.
>
>Nonsense. What you're saying is that if you don't understand the mechanisms of
>flight, you don't know that there are aircraft overhead.

No, I'm saying that if you don't understand flight, you can't
successfully pilot those aircraft.

>>Are woodworkers prevented from being chemists?
>>I'm not a chemist, but I have wide interests in many areas.
>>I know several chemists who are woodworkers. Will you tell them, or
>>should I?
>>
>
>Nothing to tell them. I know chemists, electrical engineers, computer
>programmers and a host of other tech types. So what? Where did I say that
>chemists shouldn't be woodworkers, incidentally?

Umm, the bit you snipped? Here it is again:

>>"I, like most woodwrkers,
>>am not a chemist."

Now what point was that making?

>>If they were mine, and I valued them, I would not use salt and vinegar
>>on them. This comes from my understanding of chemistry.
>
>Well, I probably won't either, but that's because I have used electrolysis for
>years.

So why are you apparently criticising my reasons for not recommending
salt and vinegar? Sheesh, we've got one guy who cleans tools left in
the rain by the kids with hydrochloric acid! And he claims to be a
chemist!

>>>Somewhere about 5 posts ago, an OT should have been added to this thread.
>>
>>Why? Is it not pertinent to restoring woodworking tools?
>>I suggest you are being selfish :)
>
>How is a thread on ionization and covalents and whatever else pertinent to
>restoring woodworking tools?

Because it helps understand the chemistry of corrosion and how to stop
it and remove it. If you don't want to understand it, then why do you
read it? Do you not understand electrolysis?
I do hope you understand it enough to know the dangers involved.

>It won't matter to me, as I've just trashed this thread, but the fact is, none
>of you seems capable of snipping, and there is absolutely no way for an average
>woodworker to tell which of you guys is full of beans, so there's not much
>value here to the woodworker.

To you, perhaps, but there are some of us benefitting from the
discussion. As I said previously, if you are not interested, why do
you read it?

>It remains a choice that may or may not work.

And you apparently don't want to find out. That's fine, but why did
you join in, if that's the case?

>And
>that may or may not damage tools because of the presence of salt.

Oh, salt damages them, but I might discover that the benefits outweigh
the disadvantages. But then you are not interested apart from
complaining that others are.

>Depends on
>which of you a person chooses to believe, because there has been no coherent
>and definitive explanation by anyone.

Not that you understand, apparently. But if you are not interested in
learning...

>If that makes me selfish, so be it.

Complaining about a discussion others are having that you are not
interested in? Yes.

>If you think that's a new cutesy on my
>name, then you're about 400 years behind the times there.

No, I realised the simiarity after I wrote it.
I decided not to pander to your sensibilities by changing it.

cC

[email protected] (Charlie Self)

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 10:29 PM

17/05/2004 4:00 PM

Sandy one writes:

>>Nonsense. What you're saying is that if you don't understand the mechanisms
>of
>>flight, you don't know that there are aircraft overhead.
>
>No, I'm saying that if you don't understand flight, you can't
>successfully pilot those aircraft.

Nonsense. Why on earth not? You do not have to know WHY to know it DOES.



>Umm, the bit you snipped? Here it is again:
>
>>>"I, like most woodwrkers,
>>>am not a chemist."
>
>Now what point was that making?

That most woodworkers are not chemists. Do you dispute that? If so, on what
grounds?

>So why are you apparently criticising my reasons for not recommending
>salt and vinegar? Sheesh, we've got one guy who cleans tools left in
>the rain by the kids with hydrochloric acid! And he claims to be a
>chemist!

I am not criticizing your reasons for not recommending it. I'm not even saying
back off. I am saying that the topic has gone on too deeply and too long to be
considered a woodworking topic. It is now OT.

>Because it helps understand the chemistry of corrosion and how to stop
>it and remove it. If you don't want to understand it, then why do you
>read it? Do you not understand electrolysis?
>I do hope you understand it enough to know the dangers involved.

Not interested in playing any more of your silly games.

>
>And you apparently don't want to find out. That's fine, but why did
>you join in, if that's the case?

You really do have reading comprehension problems, don't you?

>No, I realised the simiarity after I wrote it.
>I decided not to pander to your sensibilities by changing it.

Marvelous. Or so you think. What sensibilities, by the way? No. Forget it. I
forgot to drop this thing in with subject filters last time through. It has now
developed it's own silliness, over and above the original unnecessary
complexity.

Enjoy your continued messing about.





Charlie Self
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The
Devil's Dictionary

So

Sandy

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 10:29 PM

18/05/2004 11:53 AM

On 17 May 2004 16:00:39 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
posted:

>Sandy one writes:
>
>>>Nonsense. What you're saying is that if you don't understand the mechanisms
>>of
>>>flight, you don't know that there are aircraft overhead.
>>
>>No, I'm saying that if you don't understand flight, you can't
>>successfully pilot those aircraft.
>
>Nonsense. Why on earth not? You do not have to know WHY to know it DOES.

I thought you'd thrown your rocks and then run away.

Are you saying that aircraft pilots don't understand ALL the
mechanisms of flight? I'll bet you don't fly.

>>Umm, the bit you snipped? Here it is again:
>>
>>>>"I, like most woodwrkers,
>>>>am not a chemist."
>>
>>Now what point was that making?
>
>That most woodworkers are not chemists. Do you dispute that? If so, on what
>grounds?

So you didn't make this statement of the bleedin' obvious in support
of your whine that this discussion shouldn't be here?

Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse?

Otherwise, why did you make such a silly, obvious and apparently
irrelevant claim here? No wonder you snipped it.

>>So why are you apparently criticising my reasons for not recommending
>>salt and vinegar? Sheesh, we've got one guy who cleans tools left in
>>the rain by the kids with hydrochloric acid! And he claims to be a
>>chemist!
>
>I am not criticizing your reasons for not recommending it. I'm not even saying
>back off. I am saying that the topic has gone on too deeply and too long to be
>considered a woodworking topic. It is now OT.

Bullshit. If you have come to a point where you can't follow it
anymore, just stop reading, and don't butt in with objections that it
is irrelevant here. Derusting tools is an interest of many here I've
read over the past seven years. Not everyone is as resistant to
learning as you appear to be.

>>Because it helps understand the chemistry of corrosion and how to stop
>>it and remove it. If you don't want to understand it, then why do you
>>read it? Do you not understand electrolysis?
>>I do hope you understand it enough to know the dangers involved.
>
>Not interested in playing any more of your silly games.

You butted in with your OT whinge, remember? I thought you'd already
left. Do you really depend on filters that much?

>>And you apparently don't want to find out. That's fine, but why did
>>you join in, if that's the case?
>
>You really do have reading comprehension problems, don't you?

My incomprehension is what, exactly? (I thought you wouldn't be able
to put your finger on it.) Are you are now denying you jumped in here
whinging that this thread you could not follow was irrelevant, and
then you claimed you had pulled the plug? What's not to comprehend?

>>No, I realised the simiarity after I wrote it.
>>I decided not to pander to your sensibilities by changing it.
>
>Marvelous. Or so you think. What sensibilities, by the way?

The sensibilities that prompted you to comment on the similarity of
your name and my description of your behaviour. I considered it
fleetingly and found it eminently ignorable. Your sensibilities
prompted you to comment. No problem, but perhaps you might try to
ignore it too?

>No. Forget it. I
>forgot to drop this thing in with subject filters last time through. It has now
>developed it's own silliness, over and above the original unnecessary
>complexity.

Unnecessary for you. Again, you show your own selfishness.
Do you not have the ability to ignore what you have no interest in? Is
that why you need the crutch of filters?

>Enjoy your continued messing about.

Like we were before you decided to inject your spoiler?
We will, thankyou.

So

Sandy

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:27 PM

19/05/2004 10:56 AM

On Tue, 18 May 2004 22:19:36 GMT, Jim Wilson <[email protected]>
posted:

>Dan White wrote...
>> There. Does that settle it? :)
>
>LOL! I figured everyone else had already bailed on the thread! (G)

So I shouldn't have bothered to show the results of my experiment?
No-one else is interested?

It really staggers me that folks are happy to continue with a useless,
but potentially harmful derusting technique just because the rationale
gets a little hard. OK, I'll keep my mouth shut in future :)

So

Sandy

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:27 PM

19/05/2004 5:09 PM

On Wed, 19 May 2004 04:49:52 GMT, Jim Wilson <[email protected]>
posted:

>Sandy wrote...
>
><mucho snippage>
>
>> Jim Wilson posted:
>> ...
>> >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 :-).
>>
>> Interesting that you think it is useless.
>> I've found through my life, that one of the handiest bits of knowledge
>> I carry around with me, is my basic chemistry.
>> It helps in just about everything I do.
>
>See the smiley? I was jesting about the discussion between you and me.
>(G)

Of course, and I was adding my 2 cents to the conversation.

>As regards the rest of your post, you've made your points and I've made
>mine, so I guess we're done.

Until we post our results, perhaps?

>Cheers!

And to you too.

DW

"Dan White"

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:01 PM

18/05/2004 10:49 PM

"Jim Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dan White wrote...
> > There. Does that settle it? :)
>
> LOL! I figured everyone else had already bailed on the thread! (G)
>
> Jim

Hell no! I've got my own two samples of rusted iron soaking in Palmolive
right now. Where's Madge? Actually I am doing my own salt/no salt test and
will report here when it is done.

dwhite

So

Sandy

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:01 PM

18/05/2004 4:33 PM

On Tue, 18 May 2004 06:30:01 GMT, Jim Wilson <[email protected]>
posted:

>Sandy wrote...
>> Dropping a rock on your foot is a simple process, whereas derusting a
>> rusty article is a complex process with many decisions to make.
>
>Analogies aside, de-rusting a rusty article is not really a very complex
>process, nor are there "many" decisions to make, at least not in my
>understanding of "complex" and "many." Hyperbole, perhaps?

Nope, comparative. Cf dropping a rock on your foot :)

For the derusting, you must decide what vinegar to use, how long to
soak, how much salt, what is that black sludge in the bottom, what
sort of steel is it, how much to rinse afterwards, what to apply
afterwards, and do you dry it, and how? And those are just a few
decisions/questions that occur off the top of my head.

I have at the moment on my kitchen sink two tumblers with half an inch
of vinegar in each and excess salt in one of them.
I have placed several very rusty nails in both tumblers.
They have been there for five hours so far.
Nothing much is happening, except for a very pale yellowish tinge to
the solution. The non-salted one seems a little darker yellow than the
salted one, but this could be an optical illusion from the white salt
sitting on the bottom.
I will leave them there until the nails seem to be clean where
treated, and then rinse in tap water, and place out in the weather
again for however long. See what the subsequent corrosion is on the
cleaned areas. I do hope I get some cleaned areas to compare :)

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

To derust some historic old very rusted horseshoes years ago, I
consulted the conservation technicians at the local museum.
The technical discussion was fascinating, and I learned a lot from it.
But you had to have a basis in chemistry.

>> Yep. Close, but not my reading. His context was a complaint that this
>> discussion was irrelevant to this forum, and because he was not a
>> chemist, and couldn't follow it, it should not be discussed here.
>
>You must have misread, then. Alexy nailed it:
>
>"That he is not a chemist, and that most woodworkers are not
>chemists, and are probably more interested in whether it works than
>how it works."

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

>Additionally, Charlie's suggestion was that the discussion had drifted
>far enough afield to warrant an "OT" in the subject line, not that it
>shouldn't be discussed.

Nope, strictly speaking, OT subjects should not be discussed on
newsgroups. Of course they are, but as at least two of us thought our
discussion was on topic, I suggest Charlie was out of line.
Look at the subject header.

>Your "reading" goes a good bit beyond hyperbole;
>it teeters precipitously toward mischaracterization.

So why did he say that he was not a chemist and most woodworkers were
not chemists? Just idle chit chat? Sorry, I thought he was trying to
make a point in his context of complaining about our discussion.
The point I received was that because he didn't understand the
discussion, it was irrelevant on this forum.
Otherwise, you are saying that Charlie makes silly comments, out of
context, and is therefore perhaps a bit loopy?
I thought he was just a busybody wanting to have a moan about
something. Could he not just have ignored what did not interest HIM?

What really was the point of Charlie's interjection?
It contributed nothing except to complain about what *his* message was
even more guilty of. If he was not interested, he should have just
ignored it.

aa

alexy

in reply to Sandy on 17/05/2004 8:01 PM

17/05/2004 1:39 PM

Sandy <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 17 May 2004 12:06:40 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
>>>There is no argument. What we need explaining is why the presence of
>>>sodium chloride in the vinegar is advantageous.
>>
>>Nah. What we need to know is whether or not it WORKS.
>
>Speak for yourself. If that satisfies you, then I'm happy for you :)
>Until you understand it, you won't know whether it works or not.
Disagree. One can observe a cause and effect repeatedly and draw valid
conclusions without understanding the mechanism. Folks knew that
dropping a stone on their foot would hurt long before Newton and an
understanding of the nervous system (and do we yet fully understand
the mechanism of gravity, or just have more sophisticated observations
about it?) Charlie's point is valid; all we NEED to know is whether it
works. I'm with you in fascination with understanding why it works,
but that understanding is a want more than a need.

>>I, like most woodwrkers,
>>am not a chemist.
>
>Are woodworkers prevented from being chemists?
Reread the sentence you quoted.

>I'm not a chemist, but I have wide interests in many areas.
>I know several chemists who are woodworkers. Will you tell them, or
>should I?
Tell them what? That most woodworkers are not chemists? You tell them.
I hate the "you idiot" stares I sometimes get when stating the
obvious.

>>Like most woodworkers, I have some tools that I either buy
>>with rust on them, or that are particularly susceptible to rust under certain
>>conditions.
>
>If they were mine, and I valued them, I would not use salt and vinegar
>on them. This comes from my understanding of chemistry.
Why? What are the bad effects predicted by your understanding of
chemistry, and do they prove out in practice?

>>Somewhere about 5 posts ago, an OT should have been added to this thread.
>
>Why? Is it not pertinent to restoring woodworking tools?
Yes. I agree that it is not OT.

>I suggest you are being selfish :)
I suggest that he is stating his interest.

--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

Gg

"George"

in reply to alexy on 17/05/2004 1:39 PM

19/05/2004 5:36 PM

Check your inorganic chemistry books under electronegativity. Sodium's
about as good as it gets, iron and copper not in the same league. Of
course it helps to have a good acid electrolyte in your cell.

Now try cleaning your silver with baking soda in an aluminum pan....

"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> First of all let me say that my interest in this thread, started by Sandy,
> was caused by my own questioning of why salt helped clean copper pots with
> vinegar.

So

Sandy

in reply to alexy on 17/05/2004 1:39 PM

19/05/2004 4:27 PM

On Wed, 19 May 2004 05:22:12 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> posted:

>
>"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:07:14 GMT, "Dan White"
>> <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> 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
>> >
>>
>

DW

"Dan White"

in reply to alexy on 17/05/2004 1:39 PM

19/05/2004 8:27 PM

First of all let me say that my interest in this thread, started by Sandy,
was caused by my own questioning of why salt helped clean copper pots with
vinegar. Months ago I poured vinegar on a copper pot and it did nothing.
Then I sprinkled salt on, and the oxides just wiped away. I figure whatever
mechanism was working there is probably not that different from what happens
with iron. So on with my not-so-scientifically-controlled test:

I didn't have any rusted nails, but I did find two old 1.25 lb free weights.
These are 4" in diameter with a 1" hole for the barbell to go through. The
annular region between this hole and the outer edge of the weight was
recessed and could hold maybe a tablespoon worth of liquid, possibly more.
The annular region was embossed with the manufacturer's name and the weight.
Each weight was rusted moderately and had about the same amount of rust.
This means that there is more rust than you could casually remove, but not
so much that the weight had deep pits.

I poured vinegar into both, and then added an excess of salt to one of them.
Within hours, both were effervescing slightly. (They had bubbles collecting
on the surface). Note that this was done in contact with air, and with
plenty of surface area. After 48 hours I poured the liquid out of each into
test tube like containers. What I observe is that the vinegar/salt sample
was a light yellowish/orange color, and contained a fair amount of black
flecks and little chunks, in addition to some very small black particles.
On the other hand, the vinegar/no salt solution was a deep red color, very
different from the vinegar/salt sample. It had no flecks or chunks of black
material, but did have a fair amount of very fine, small black particles.
In both cases, black material built up on the edges of the liquid, and also
on some of the submerged surfaces.

I cleaned the weights by hand and observed that the rust was gone from both,
but the vinegar/salt weight looked SLIGHTLY cleaner. I then used a brass
brush to clean them up further. After drying them out, it appears that the
vinegar/salt weight is a little brighter looking. The vinegar only weight
looks darker, as if there is dark material caught up in the fine pits and
crevices of the weight.

Overall I'd say that there is a definite difference between the two as one
liquid was light yellow or orange, and the other was deep red. The
vinegar/salt weight also looked a little cleaner, but it is a very slight
difference. It could be that these old weights just looked a little
different from the start.

What caused the red color in one and not the other? Is the iron chloride
complex colorless, while FeCl3 is red?

Sorry for being long-winded. Hope this spurs some ideas.

dwhite
PS. I might add clean water to each next to see if there is any difference
in corrosion rate as postulated by Sandy.




"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 05:22:12 GMT, "Dan White"
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
> >
> >"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:07:14 GMT, "Dan White"
> >> <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> 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
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

KV

"Ken Vaughn"

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

08/05/2004 3:51 PM

I have used the salt and vinegar method for cleaning small hand tools for
several years. It works slowly, but works well for high carbon steel --
especially plane irons and chisels. You will need to use something slightly
abrasive to help clean the surface -- I have found that 3M ScotchBrite pads
work well. On badly rusted plane irons, 2 to 3 cycles (soak for 30 minutes
and scrub with pad) will clean it pretty well.

The mixture is simple, standard 5% acidity white vinegar and table salt --
just dissolve as much salt in the vinegar as it will take, and it takes
quite a bit and dissolves slowly as it nears the saturation point. The
mixture can be reused several times even though it turns red from the rust.
Another important point, the steel will rust very quickly when removed from
the solution. Keep some clear rinse water and a can of WD40 spray handy to
clean and protect the tool.

--
Ken Vaughn
Visit My Workshop: http://home.earthlink.net/~kvaughn65/

"Paul O." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Did a google for rust removal and saw a few references for removal of
> lightly rusted hand tools using table salt and vinegar. Any of you use
this
> method? If this works would like to try it before scrounging up the parts
> for electrolytic rust removal. How much vinegar and salt do you mix with
> water? Thanks.
>
> --
> Paul O.
> [email protected]
>
>

Ud

Unknown

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

13/05/2004 10:15 PM

On Thu, 13 May 2004 09:04:26 -0700, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>,;In article <[email protected]>,
>,;[email protected] says...
>,;> Ditto! All I can say is that the presence of ions in solution, ionic
>,;> strength, does definitely affect how species in solution react. Maybe there
>,;> is some physical chemistry website or ng you can visit and ask this
>,;> question. I'd be interested to know, too!
>,;>
>,;Wow! I didn't mean to start such a learned discussion :-). My
>,;knowledge of chemistry is limited to making various explosive
>,;compounds, learned long ago in my juvenile days. And lately, I
>,;think I've forgotten most of that - CRS seting in :-).
>,;
>,;But what I meant by "ask a chemist" is that a friend of mine who
>,;is a chemist said that the vinegar and salt combined to form a
>,;weak hydrochloric acid. I took his word for it.

You shouldn't have as he was wrong.

Vinegar is approximately 5% acetic acid plus some other goodies to
provide some taste. The hydrogen ion concentration is not sufficient
to react with metallic iron and therein lies one of the keys to the
process. The other key is the fact that chloride ions form a stable
complex with iron ions in solution. The iron chloride complex is
strong enough so that iron oxide will dissolve and form that complex.
Since there is no oxidant strong enough to react with iron metal the
net result is that the iron oxide goes into solution as the chloride
but the iron metal does not react.

It is essential that the solution be kept oxygen free or the metal
will dissolve. This is particularly noticeable if you allow the metal
to be "derusted" to stick out of the solution into air e.g. you will
find that there has been a dissolution of iron metal at the air liquid
interface.

The role of the acetic acid is to keep the solution acidic enough to
prevent the precipitation of iron oxide but low enough so that iron
metal does not react with hydrogen ions. It is the high concentration
of chloride that removes the rust not a "weak hydrochloric acid".

If one used a concentrated salt solution without the acetic acid then
one would get a preciptate of hydrous iron oxide at the surface. This
would slow the reaction to a crawl.

A weak acid such as acetic acid allows one to put a lot of acid in the
solution but maintain a relatively low hydrogen concentration.

The solution if kept covered can be used repeatedly until the amount
of dissolved iron reaches a point where the hydrous oxide begins to
precipitate. If the used solutions are left open to the air then it
will accumulate ferric chloride as a result of air oxidation. That
ferric chloride is an oxidizing agent strong enough to react with iron
metal which is the reason one gets an "etch line" at the liquid
surface.

Ba

B a r r y

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

08/05/2004 8:15 PM

On Sat, 08 May 2004 13:32:19 -0500, Hoyt Weathers <[email protected]>
wrote:

>This may sound odd, but I have used plain ole brake fluid to remove rust. Wear
>goggles when using it because it is death to eyes. Not really, but it is bad stuff.

It certainly is death to paint, so keep it off the paint.

Barry

So

Sandy

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

13/05/2004 7:53 PM

On Thu, 13 May 2004 08:21:20 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> posted:

>
>"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> On the other hand, the acetate ion is of course a molecule and not a
>single ion.
>
>Minor correction: it is a single ion, just not a single atom.
>
>dwhite

Yep, it's big, but this surely only matters when it has to associate
with a cation. Crystalisation.

LZ

Luigi Zanasi

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

09/05/2004 9:36 PM

On Sat, 8 May 2004 14:57:18 -0700, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> scribbled:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> I've used sandpaper, then fine steel wool. Works just fine, and gets
>> rid of heavy to light rust.
>>
>And completely destroys any collectible value the tool may have
>had.

Good! ;-)

Luigi
Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/antifaq.html
www.yukonomics.ca/wooddorking/humour.html

So

Sandy

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

13/05/2004 11:47 AM

On Thu, 13 May 2004 02:26:20 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> posted:

>"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:43:42 -0700, Larry Blanchard
>> <[email protected]> posted:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, Sandy
>> ><> says...
>> >> I'm wondering why the salt. It surely does nothing but perhaps cause
>> >> problems later on.
>> >>
>> >See your friendly local chemistry professor :-).
>>
>> Do you not know what it does?
>> I've got a fairly reasonable handle on chemistry, and I can't see what
>> the salt is there for. The acetic acid will dissolve rust, and slowly
>> dissolve iron. No need for the salt unless you know of a good reason.
>> Please expound.
>>
>
>A quick search turned up this. This guy says it pretty well. The bottom
>line is that the dissolution of the rust is prompted by the presence of
>acetate and chloride ions.

But I can't understand why. Iron acetate is as soluble as iron
chloride, although it will be a moot point as the solution will just
be a mixture of hydrogen ions, iron ions, acetate ions, sodium ions,
chloride ions, and undissociated acetic acid. The undissociated acetic
acid supplies the pool of hydrogen ions at a concentration that
depends on the "strength" (not concentration) of that acid.

> Iron would rather form a molecule with acetate
>or chloride ions,
>which are soluble in water than remain as iron oxide,
>which is insoluble.

Only because the neutralisation (rust dissolution) results in water
which is effectively removed from the reaction. This is what drives
the reaction in the direction of the dissolution of the iron oxide.

>It is easy to introduce chloride in the form of salt,
>and greatly increase the rate of reaction.

I don't see how.

>The acid component of the
>solution apparently does not take part in the dissolution of the rust (but
>does dissolve the pure iron).

Of course it does! The H+ of the acid is involved in dissolving the
rust. Try doing it without :)

>It prevents the iron ions from reforming into
>iron hydroxides, which are insoluble as is the original iron oxide (rust).

Not only does it prevent this (through the formation of water) it is
the only thing which dissolves the rust in the first place.

>dwhite
>From: [email protected] (Don Wilkins)
>Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
>Subject: Re: Rust
>Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 01:35:37 GMT
>
>On 2 Apr 1999 13:49:14 GMT, [email protected] (James W.
>Swonger) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Grant Erwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Muriatic acid works fine on rusty steel. It attacks the rust a lot
>>>faster than
>>>the steel.
>
>As a chemist my first choice is hydrochloric acid as a solvent for
>rust.

Of course, but you have to be quick to keep any of the iron. My first
choice is certainly not a strong acid like this. Far too dangerous.

>Muriatic acid is readily available from the local hardware
>stores. Yes it will also dissolve iron so you don't want to dump the
>parts in and come back next week to see if the rust is dissolved.

Too dangerous for me.
.
>>>Vinegar alone is just a slower and milder form of the above. Commercial
>>>pickling (submersion in a hot bath of a combination of strong acids) is
>>>a more extreme version of the above.
>
>I guess I want to mildly disagree with this. Vinegar is about 5%
>acetic acid and also contains various organic stuff to provide some
>taste but which are not particularly essential to the derusting.
>Acetic acid is a weak acid and is going to behave differently than
>hydrochloric acid.

Only in speed. They both do much the same thing eventually.

>The acetate ion forms soluble complexes with iron in solution which
>aids in the dissolution.

All acids will form complexes of greater or lesser solubility.

>Since acetic acid is a weak acid there will
>be a lot of the acetate ion tied up as undissociated acetic acid.

Only until the dissociated H+ is used up. There will be a constant
supply of H+ ions, just a much lesser concentration than with a
strong acid.

>Hydrochloric acid is a strong acid and will be essentially completely
>dissociated. The chloride ion forms a stable complex with trivalent
>iron. It is the stability of this complex which aids in dissolving the
>iron oxide (rust).

But there is no hydrochloric acid in the salt/vinegar solution. The
iron acetate is as soluble and stable as the iron chloride.

>The addition of sodium chloride to the vinegar provides the extra
>complexing power of the chloride to this mixture.

What is "complexing power"? I must've missed that lecture :)

>>>I'm not sure what happens chemically with salt and vinegar. I've only
>>>used it to clean coppers, brasses and bronzes where if it works it is
>>>like magic.
>
>The chloride and/or the acetate ions form stable complexes with iron
>ions which aids in the dissolution of rust.

But the acetate ion is sufficient, I would have thought. The chloride
is surely superfluous. It's the H+ which does the neutralising.

>The trivalent iron forms
>much more stable complexes which would lead one to believe that the
>solutions would be more effective with e.g. Fe2O3 than with lower
>oxides. Those tenacious black oxides are more dense and usually
>contain divalent iron oxide.

And it will be the concentration of H+ that does the trick, and sodium
chloride in the vinrgar will make no difference to this AFAICS.

>> The combination gives you a mild hydrochloric acid with other junk
>>floating in it.
>>
>>H+
>>Na+
>>Cl-
>>CH3COO- (acetate)
>
>Well sort of but there will also be a fair amount of undissociated
>acetic acid.

Which is of no consequence, as whenever the H+ is taken out of
solution by becoming water, more acetic acid dissociates supplying
more H+.

>>The acetate might give you some buffering effect, perhaps.
>>I've seen acetic acid as an additive in a couple of electroplating
>>recipes.
>
>Yes but the buffering is not important in this case.
>
>>The active principle is the HCl. For the copper based materials,
>>it converts the insoluble oxides to soluble chlorides. I expect
>>the same activity is responsible for iron cleaning.
>
>In principle it is the same but it is the complexing power of the
>anions (chloride and acetate) which drive the reaction.

Not at all. It is simply the formation of water from the neutralising
by the acetic acid of the iron oxide base.

>It needs to be
>acidic enough to prevent the precipitation of the very insoluble iron
>hydroxides.

And vinegar is just that. Salt will make no difference to the acidity.
It is neutral, remember. It will supply NO hydrogen ions (H+)

>Other than that the hydrogen ion does not participate in
>the dissolution of the rust.

Of course it does. It is the other half of the reaction. The water
forming bit which drives it to the right, in fact. Most reactions go a
certain direction because of the loss, or inability to participate
further, of one or more of the reactants. Carbon dioxide may bubble
off and get lost, or a precipitate of an insoluble reactant may form.
In this case, effectively-undissociated water is formed.

>The hydrogen ion concentration does
>contribute to the speed at which the metallic iron disappears.

But also the rate at which neutralisation of the iron oxide (base)
occurs.

>There have been extensive discussions of an electrolytic method in the
>past which I have stayed clear of. In that case it appears that the
>rust removal is accomplished by creating hydrogen gas underneath the
>rust coating and 'blasting" it off. This would explain why some of
>those black dense oxide coatings are not removed.

No, it is surely just applying an electric potential to drive a
reaction in the direction you want.

>The electrolytic method should not remove much metallic iron but on
>the other hand what ever is on the surface as rust and gets "blasted"
>off is not likely to be redeposited as metallic iron back on the piece
>from the same location from which it originated.

I think the advantage of electrolytic methods are that not one further
molecule of metallic iron will be dissolved. Unlike your drastic
hydrochloric acid method :)

>In other words what is turned to rust ain't gonna get put back where
>it once was.

Nope. Maybe a few molecules on the surface of the metal, but I would
guess this is insignificant. The aim really is to halt the corrosion
where it is at, and not advance it further by the rust removal
process.

>
>
>
>Search for Google's copy of this article
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>
>From: [email protected] (Don Wilkins)
>Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
>Subject: Re: Rust
>Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 18:25:07 GMT
>
>On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 12:04:33 -0600, "Don Foreman"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>> >. It needs to be
>>> > acidic enough to prevent the precipitation of the very insoluble iron
>>> > hydroxides. Other than that the hydrogen ion does not participate in
>>> > the dissolution of the rust. The hydrogen ion concentration does
>>> > contribute to the speed at which the metallic iron disappears.
>>
>>Does this mean that using stronger acetic acid probably would not speed
>rust
>>removal but may increase rate of attack on steel?
>
>I probably should say I don't know the answer to this question. My
>opinion not backed by any research is that the 5% concentration of
>acetic acid in vinegar probably isn't the optimum concentration. I ran
>through some equations below to show why increasing the acetic acid
>concentration doesn't increase the hydrogen ion concentration at the
>same rate as occurs with hydrochloric acid. At 5% acetic acid I doubt
>if the hydrogen ion concentration is high enough to dissolve iron.

Slowly (very)

>Rust is already oxidized iron so when it is dissolved there is no
>requirement for a change in oxidation state. When you dissolve the
>metal (any metal) into an aqueous solution the metal is oxidized. If
>the metal is oxidized then something must be reduced. If there is
>nothing there to be reduced then the metal won't be oxidized.

Hydrogen ions?

>In the mixtures under discussion (hydrochloric acid solutions or
>vinegar-salt) there are three things present in the solution to serve
>as oxidizing agents. These are the hydrogen ions from the acid, the
>oxygen dissolved in the solution, and ferric iron.

Which are not supplied by the salt.

>So if you increase the hydrogen ion concentration then there will be
>an increase in the dissolution of the metal (in this case iron). This
>will be very apparent when a strong acid is used such as hydrochloric
>acid because all of the acid is ionized.

Yep.

>Acetic acid however is a weak acid so an increase in the concentration
>of this acid does not increase the hydrogen ion concentration
>proportionally. If you look at the equation for the ionization of
>acetic acid

Yep

>HAc <----> (H+) + (Ac-) one finds that there is an equilibrium
>constant for that dissociation

As with everything.....

>(H+) (Ac-)/ (HAc) = ~10^-5
>
>since (H+) = (Ac-)
>
>(H+) = square root of (HAc)*10^-5
>
>With that it is obvious that increasing the acetic acid concentration
>is not going to cause a rapid increase in the dissolution of iron
>metal.

Yep. Godawful slow.

>Who ever came up with the addition of chloride ion did so to provide
>something to form a complex with the dissolved iron among other
>things. If you look at that equation above for the dissociation it is
>obvious that if they had added acetate ion (e.g. sodium acetate) it
>would have reduced the hydrogen ion concentration probably causing
>precipitation of iron compounds. Clever idea for kitchen chemicals.

Of course.

>On the other hand there are other reactions which will come into play
>once the process is started.
>
>As most of you know ferric chloride can be quite corrosive and is a
>pretty good etching agent. The ferric chloride produced from the
>dissolved rust is going to look at that freshly produced iron metal
>surface as a nice place to do some etching (dissolve iron metal).

Well simply a salt of a strong acid and a weak base.

>Of course there will be some divalent iron present as well. This will
>come either from the rust or by the reaction of the ferric chloride
>with the metallic iron.

H+ + Fe --->

>Oxygen (from air) dissolved in the solution will oxidize the ferrous
>ions up to ferric. This ferric can then react again with metallic
>iron. If you don't want to dissolve iron metal then you should remove
>air from the procedure. A little bit of ferric chloride in a sodium
>chloride solution with a continuous supply of oxygen can dissolve one
>hell of a lot of iron.

H+ + Fe + O2 ---> Rust :)

>I hope this hasn't confused the issue more than it helped. I suspect
>that one could make a better rust removal solution using glacial
>acetic acid, water, and sodium chloride. I believe the formula was
>developed because of the ready availability of vinegar and salt. I
>would vary the chloride concentration as well as the acetic acid
>concentration. If you don't want to dissolve iron metal keep oxygen
>out of the process.

Fine, but what does the chloride contribute?

>If you are inclined to do this be careful with glacial acetic acid. It
>doesn't burn or cause immediate discomfort on the skin but if not
>removed promptly will cause large thick patches of skin to come off
>leaving tender exposed meat. This is a type of chemical burn that you
>are not likely to get more than once.

Of course, but as vinegar is so harmless and cheaply available...

>As I read and reread this post I am not entirely satisfied but there
>is some very complex chemistry taking place and it is not easy to
>describe it in a short note.

I just want to know the rationale for the addition of neutral chloride
ions. They don't increase the dissociation of the acetic acid, I would
have thought. Iron chlorides are no more soluble than iron acetates.

So

Sandy

in reply to Sandy on 13/05/2004 11:47 AM

17/05/2004 9:11 AM

On Sun, 16 May 2004 18:56:02 -0500, Unknown <[email protected]>
posted:

>On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:30:02 GMT, "Dan White"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>,;
>>,;"Charles Erskine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>,;news:[email protected]...
>>,;> More than you probably wanted to know:
>>,;>
>>,;> http://yarchive.net/metal/rust_remove.html
>>,;>
>>,;> <snip>
>>,;
>>,;This is the post I pasted in this thread originally to try and answer the
>>,;original question.
>
>OK I missed your original post. I wrote the article you refer to. I am
>a chemist and do know what is happening in this procedure so let's
>start fresh.
>
>What is it that needs more clarification on this topic? You ask the
>questions and I will try to give a reasonable explanation.

Why do you need salt in the acetic acid to increase the rust removal?

DW

"Dan White"

in reply to "Paul O." on 08/05/2004 6:02 AM

13/05/2004 7:31 AM

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>, Sandy
> >> ><> says...
> >> >> I'm wondering why the salt. It surely does nothing but perhaps cause
> >> >> problems later on.
> >> >>
> >> >See your friendly local chemistry professor :-).
> >>
> >> Do you not know what it does?
> >> I've got a fairly reasonable handle on chemistry, and I can't see what
> >> the salt is there for. The acetic acid will dissolve rust, and slowly
> >> dissolve iron. No need for the salt unless you know of a good reason.
> >> Please expound.
> >>
> >

Sandy - I provided that rather long post that you responded to yesterday. I
deleted it because of its size, and most of it is unrelated to your
question. Also, you should realize (if you didn't) that I was passing on an
article written by someone and didn't add any of my own thoughts, since I
have forgotten so much chemistry I didn't want to dust off the brain cells.
However, after reading your correct responses to his article, I had some
thoughts that might possibly help, although I don't have a proven answer to
your question. :(

Let me say that I agree that the driving force in the reaction to dissolve
the iron oxide is the hydronium ion, and formation of water on the right
side of the equilibrium. I think the answer to why you have to add salt to
the mix is that the salt increases the ionic strength of the solution. This
improves the conductivity of the solution, and might have the effect of
improving the rate of reaction by allowing an easier transfer of charges
among the reacting ions. I know this is a bit vague, but I don't know if
anybody has a really good answer on this.

On the other hand, I recall that the equilibrium constant is really based on
the activity of the ions in solution, and not their concentration. At
higher ionic strengths (due to salt addition), I believe the activity, and
therefore, the equilibrium constant, is lower than it would be without the
salt. It seems to me this would tend to lower the dissociation of the
acetic acid, and bind up even more H+ than without the salt. I think if
this is correct, that it isn't the prevailing factor as I believe the salt
does increase the reaction rate.

I think the case of cleaning your copper pots is similar to the rust issue.
In that case, if you pour vinegar on the copper pot with the oxides on it,
you won't see much if anything happen. When you sprinkle salt on the
surface wetted with vinegar, you quickly see the oxides disappear from the
spots where the salt is dissolving. It is very clear that salt does speed
the rate of reaction in the case of copper oxides, and I have to think it
does the same with iron oxides.

If you don't believe salt does anything, it is simple enough to test for
yourself on two equal rusty spots. As to "why" it works, I have to think it
is because of improved migration of electrons through solution due to the
higher ionic strength of the solution. You might find, for example, that it
takes two weeks to do the job with acetic acid alone, and one day with the
salt added. Whatever problems you say the salt may cause later on may be
outweighted by the time factor. Of course it is also possible (probable?)
that the acid alone will not only take longer, but might in fact not remove
as much oxide in the end.

I had one other thought, improbable as it may be: I'd say the Fe3+ ion is
relatively large compared to the Cl- ion. On the other hand, the acetate
ion is of course a molecule and not a single ion. Maybe there is also a bit
of steric hindrance going on as well. With no Cl- present, all the Fe3+ has
to bond with the acetate molecule (3 of them). If there is some difficulty
fitting 3 of these molecules on one Fe ion, the reaction could be inhibited.
If free Cl- is present, it could more quickly and easily neutralize the Fe
ion and move the molecule away from the reacting area.

regards,
dwhite

Ud

Unknown

in reply to "Dan White" on 13/05/2004 7:31 AM

17/05/2004 7:10 AM

On Mon, 17 May 2004 04:44:41 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>,;
>,;"Unknown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>,;news:[email protected]...
>,;> On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:30:02 GMT, "Dan White"
>,;> <[email protected]> wrote:
>,;>
>,;> >,;
>,;> >,;"Charles Erskine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>,;> >,;news:[email protected]...
>,;> >,;> More than you probably wanted to know:
>,;> >,;>
>,;> >,;> http://yarchive.net/metal/rust_remove.html
>,;> >,;>
>,;> >,;> <snip>
>,;> >,;
>,;> >,;This is the post I pasted in this thread originally to try and answer
>,;the
>,;> >,;original question.
>,;>
>,;> OK I missed your original post. I wrote the article you refer to. I am
>,;> a chemist and do know what is happening in this procedure so let's
>,;> start fresh.
>,;>
>,;> What is it that needs more clarification on this topic? You ask the
>,;> questions and I will try to give a reasonable explanation.
>,;
>,;I had a feeling you were the same person as the original post I pasted.
>,;Sandy had the original question and I was trying to help. The only thing I
>,;still don't understand is exactly what the "complex" is that drives the
>,;Fe203 to dissociate and reform this complex with Cl-. Is it some kind of
>,;hydrated Fe complexed with Cl-?


If the rust is present as Fe203 then the iron is trivalent and will go
into the salt-acetic acid solution predominately as the FeCl6(-3)
complex. Note that there is no change in oxidation state of the iron.

That iron complex is a central trivalent iron ion (with a +3 charge)
which usually has a coordination number of six. That means there will
be six positions around that iron ion that are occupied by some
species. Since the concentration of chloride is so high relative to
the other anions the predominate species will be FeCl6(-3). The net
charge of the complex is -3 because each chloride carries a -1 charge
and the iron has a +3 charge. There certainly will be some anions
where an acetate ion and/or a hydroxyl ion will replace one or more of
the chlorides. For this discussion the exact composition of that iron
complex is not only unknown but is of no particular interest. Just
remember that if too many of the chlorides in that complex are
replaced by hydroxyls or acetates then the iron will precipitate as a
hydrous oxide or basic acetate and that is why one uses such a high
concentration of chloride.

It is the stability of that iron chloride complex and the whopping
excess of chloride ions that drives this reaction. The high solubility
of iron chlorides prevents the reaction from coming to a screeching
halt due to precipitated of hydrous iron oxides and basic acetates.
There is no oxidation or reduction reaction at this point.

That iron complex will oxidize iron metal. The simplified net reaction
is

2Fe+3 + Fe(0) --> 3Fe+2

This reaction is one that you don't want to happen because that Fe(0)
is the iron metal you presumably are trying to recover rust free. This
also should suggest to you why you should keep oxygen (air) out of the
solution.

Fe+2 is oxidized to Fe+3 by oxygen and the reaction takes place
readily because of the stability of the iron(III)-chloride complex. If
you allow air into the process you will be producing more Fe+3 which
in turn reacts with the iron metal (see the above reaction). If you
bubbled air through the solution this process will continue until you
run out of iron metal or the process gets bogged down by
precipitation. It is this reaction which will give you an etch line at
the liquid surface. Why?...because that is where the oxygen is.

This process works well with Fe203, less well with Fe304.

Since the concern about using chloride has been mentioned I will
address that issue as well. The chloride will be pretty well rinsed
off of the surface. The freshly cleaned iron surface is quite reactive
and needs some type of protection. If you keep iron dry it won't rust.
WD-40 is not a good option as it will pick up water.

Chloride can remain in microscopic cracks where it can accelerate
stress corrosion. If you are cleaning up an I-beam for a bridge this
process might not be a good choice. If you are cleaning a wrench e.g.
that is not an antique I wouldn't worry about stress corrosion. If I
am cleaning some tool that the kids left out in the rain I probably
will dunk it in a 5% solution of muriatic acid, rinse it and apply a
light wax.

If you have a valuable antique get some advice from someone else as
cleaning may not be appropriate.

Why not use vinegar without the chloride? Vinegar is ~5% acetic acid.
Now for a little of the requested math. The dissociation constant of
HAc (acetic acid) is ~10^-5. (Ten to the minus five) In simplified
terms the H+ concentration in solution times the Ac-1 equals ten to
the minus five. Since the H+ = Ac-1 the acetate and the hydrogen ion
concentration in 5% acetic acid will equal the square root of 10^-5 or
somewhere around .02 molar. If someone wants to be picky it actually
calculates to be a tad more concentrated. That concentration of
hydrogen ions won't keep trivalent iron in solution.

This thread has stirred up some interest. I will stick with it at
least for a while. Let's see if this answers some of the questions or
if I have everyone more confused.



LB

Larry Blanchard

in reply to "Dan White" on 13/05/2004 7:31 AM

17/05/2004 1:44 PM

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> 2. You have to admit that the NaCl is greatly accelerating the reaction
> rate.
>
And that's the whole point. It does make a difference - I know,
I've tried it both ways.

Why does it work? I don't really care.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

DW

"Dan White"

in reply to "Dan White" on 13/05/2004 7:31 AM

17/05/2004 5:29 AM


"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 17 May 2004 04:44:41 GMT, "Dan White"
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
> >
> >"Unknown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:30:02 GMT, "Dan White"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >,;
> >> >,;"Charles Erskine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >,;news:[email protected]...
> >> >,;> More than you probably wanted to know:
> >> >,;>
> >> >,;> http://yarchive.net/metal/rust_remove.html
> >> >,;>
> >> >,;> <snip>
> >> >,;
> >> >,;This is the post I pasted in this thread originally to try and
answer
> >the
> >> >,;original question.
> >>
> >> OK I missed your original post. I wrote the article you refer to. I am
> >> a chemist and do know what is happening in this procedure so let's
> >> start fresh.
> >>
> >> What is it that needs more clarification on this topic? You ask the
> >> questions and I will try to give a reasonable explanation.
> >
> >I had a feeling you were the same person as the original post I pasted.
> >Sandy had the original question and I was trying to help. The only thing
I
> >still don't understand is exactly what the "complex" is that drives the
> >Fe203 to dissociate and reform this complex with Cl-. Is it some kind of
> >hydrated Fe complexed with Cl-?
> >
> >thanks,
> >dwhite
> >
>
> Thanks Dan, that's my question exactly.
> I can't see the difference between a ferric chloride complex and a
> ferric acetate complex. The thing that drives the reaction in my
> understanding is 6H+ + Fe2O3 --> 2Fe+++ + 3H2O
> That formation of water is what moves the reaction to the right.
> For me, salt is just going to cause problems down the line when it
> sets up corrosion cells in the fine interstices of the previous rust
> pitting. Unless someone can show that it is invaluable in the
> derusting process with weak acids, I would advise to stay well away
> from it. As I said, I far prefer mechanical derusting with a non-polar
> solvent (kerosene or CRC) for anything valuable. YMMV

Just 2 comments:

1. It may just be that my chemistry was so long ago, but I'm not sure of the
usage of the term "complex" in this context. Are we calling an FeCl3
molecule a complex (I didn't think so)? My recollection is that a complex
had more to do with Van der Walls forces attracting surrounding molecules
such as the solvent to the ion or molecule in question, as if it were
chelated or sequestered. What is the complex that results from the
rust-chloride reaction?

2. You have to admit that the NaCl is greatly accelerating the reaction
rate. Just do like I mentioned and sprinkle salt on a copper pan wetted
with vinegar. You will see the fastest reaction where the salt is. It
seems you are looking at this from the standpoint that salt does nothing,
and are challenging someone to prove otherwise. I think we are both
interested in the same thing, but maybe are looking at it from different
standpoints.

regards,
dwhite


So

Sandy

in reply to "Dan White" on 13/05/2004 7:31 AM

17/05/2004 1:05 PM

On Mon, 17 May 2004 04:44:41 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> posted:

>
>"Unknown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 14 May 2004 16:30:02 GMT, "Dan White"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >,;
>> >,;"Charles Erskine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >,;news:[email protected]...
>> >,;> More than you probably wanted to know:
>> >,;>
>> >,;> http://yarchive.net/metal/rust_remove.html
>> >,;>
>> >,;> <snip>
>> >,;
>> >,;This is the post I pasted in this thread originally to try and answer
>the
>> >,;original question.
>>
>> OK I missed your original post. I wrote the article you refer to. I am
>> a chemist and do know what is happening in this procedure so let's
>> start fresh.
>>
>> What is it that needs more clarification on this topic? You ask the
>> questions and I will try to give a reasonable explanation.
>
>I had a feeling you were the same person as the original post I pasted.
>Sandy had the original question and I was trying to help. The only thing I
>still don't understand is exactly what the "complex" is that drives the
>Fe203 to dissociate and reform this complex with Cl-. Is it some kind of
>hydrated Fe complexed with Cl-?
>
>thanks,
>dwhite
>

Thanks Dan, that's my question exactly.
I can't see the difference between a ferric chloride complex and a
ferric acetate complex. The thing that drives the reaction in my
understanding is 6H+ + Fe2O3 --> 2Fe+++ + 3H2O
That formation of water is what moves the reaction to the right.
For me, salt is just going to cause problems down the line when it
sets up corrosion cells in the fine interstices of the previous rust
pitting. Unless someone can show that it is invaluable in the
derusting process with weak acids, I would advise to stay well away
from it. As I said, I far prefer mechanical derusting with a non-polar
solvent (kerosene or CRC) for anything valuable. YMMV

DW

"Dan White"

in reply to "Dan White" on 13/05/2004 7:31 AM

17/05/2004 8:49 PM

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Why does it work? I don't really care.

I find it interesting, but my background is in chemical engineering.
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Looks like at least some of them are in Iraq. Better change your sig line
soon! :)

dwhite


You’ve reached the end of replies