Difference between revisions of "Corrosion Inhibitor"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(added article body) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
=== Corrosion Inhibitor test === | === Corrosion Inhibitor test === | ||
| − | + | ==== Test method ==== | |
# Each bottle was filled with a similar quantity of water and similar number of (already slightly rusty) nails. | # Each bottle was filled with a similar quantity of water and similar number of (already slightly rusty) nails. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
#* Purimachos Protex | #* Purimachos Protex | ||
#* none (control) | #* none (control) | ||
| − | # The bottles were then placed together in a warm place (the back of an airing cupboard) | + | # The bottles were then placed together in a warm place (the back of an airing cupboard) |
| + | # Six months later the bottles were examined | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Before ==== | ||
{| | {| | ||
| Line 23: | Line 26: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | + | ==== After ==== | |
{| | {| | ||
!Fernox | !Fernox | ||
| + | | [[Image:Corrosion_Inhibitor_test_-_Fernox_(2)_040913.jpg]] | ||
| [[Image:Corrosion_Inhibitor_test_-_Fernox_(1)_040913.jpg]] | | [[Image:Corrosion_Inhibitor_test_-_Fernox_(1)_040913.jpg]] | ||
| − | |||
|- | |- | ||
!Protex | !Protex | ||
| + | | [[Image:Corrosion_Inhibitor_test_-_Protex_(2)_040913.jpg]] | ||
| [[Image:Corrosion_Inhibitor_test_-_Protex_(1)_040913.jpg]] | | [[Image:Corrosion_Inhibitor_test_-_Protex_(1)_040913.jpg]] | ||
| − | |||
|- | |- | ||
!Sentinel | !Sentinel | ||
| + | | [[Image:Corrosion_Inhibitor_test_-_Sentinel_(2)_040913.jpg]] | ||
| [[Image:Corrosion_Inhibitor_test_-_Sentinel_(1)_040913.jpg]] | | [[Image:Corrosion_Inhibitor_test_-_Sentinel_(1)_040913.jpg]] | ||
| − | |||
|- | |- | ||
!none | !none | ||
| + | | [[Image:Corrosion_Inhibitor_test_-_none_(2)_040913.jpg]] | ||
| [[Image:Corrosion_Inhibitor_test_-_none_(1)_040913.jpg]] | | [[Image:Corrosion_Inhibitor_test_-_none_(1)_040913.jpg]] | ||
| − | |||
|} | |} | ||
==== Further work ==== | ==== Further work ==== | ||
| − | |||
* Other brands of inhibitor (e.g. Tower, CalChem; seen on the market since this test was carried out) could be tested. | * Other brands of inhibitor (e.g. Tower, CalChem; seen on the market since this test was carried out) could be tested. | ||
| Line 50: | Line 52: | ||
* The test could be repeated with the addition of copper (and perhaps other materials) to the mix to see if these either affect the effectiveness of the inhibitors or (especially in the case of Aluminium etc) suffer corrosion themselves. | * The test could be repeated with the addition of copper (and perhaps other materials) to the mix to see if these either affect the effectiveness of the inhibitors or (especially in the case of Aluminium etc) suffer corrosion themselves. | ||
| − | * | + | * Samples of limescale (e.g. scaled-up pipe or fittings) could be introduced to see whether any inhibitor has actual descaling properties. |
* More air could be introduced to the test samples periodically and the samples monitored over a longer period to see how well each inhibitor copes. | * More air could be introduced to the test samples periodically and the samples monitored over a longer period to see how well each inhibitor copes. | ||
Revision as of 01:26, 2 January 2007
Corrosion Inhibitor is used in the water in Hot Water ("Hydronic") Central Heating systems to protect ferrous components of the system (including steel radiators and cast-iron boiler heat exchangers) from corrosion caused by the action of oxygen dissolved in the water.
Corrosion inhibitors vary widely in price, from about £15 to £15 (for liquid intended to protect an average domestic installation). Since the chemistry of corrosion and corrosion-inhibition is presumably fairly widely known it would seem reasonable to expect little difference in effectiveness between different makes of inhibitor. Unfortunately simple experiment suggests otherwise.
Corrosion Inhibitor test
Test method
- Each bottle was filled with a similar quantity of water and similar number of (already slightly rusty) nails.
- Inhibitor was added to each of the bottles in the concentrations recommended by their manufacturers.
- The inhibitors used were:
- Fernox MB-1
- Sentinel X100
- Purimachos Protex
- none (control)
- The bottles were then placed together in a warm place (the back of an airing cupboard)
- Six months later the bottles were examined
Before
|
|
|
|
After
| Fernox | _040913.jpg)
|
_040913.jpg)
|
|---|---|---|
| Protex | _040913.jpg)
|
_040913.jpg)
|
| Sentinel | _040913.jpg)
|
_040913.jpg)
|
| none | _040913.jpg)
|
_040913.jpg)
|
Further work
- Other brands of inhibitor (e.g. Tower, CalChem; seen on the market since this test was carried out) could be tested.
- The test could be repeated with the addition of copper (and perhaps other materials) to the mix to see if these either affect the effectiveness of the inhibitors or (especially in the case of Aluminium etc) suffer corrosion themselves.
- Samples of limescale (e.g. scaled-up pipe or fittings) could be introduced to see whether any inhibitor has actual descaling properties.
- More air could be introduced to the test samples periodically and the samples monitored over a longer period to see how well each inhibitor copes.
- This and similar tests could be repeated by other people. The original tests were carried out by John Stumbles during 2004.