James Charles Ruwaldt wrote:
>
> This is probably a primary reason, but don't positively grounded cars have
> a tendency to rust more than negatively grounded cars? Whether this is a
> significant reason in the switch to negative ground, I don't know, but
> what is the reason for this tendency to rust more? I suspect that it may
> be that the body and frame maintain a positive charge, while oxygen ions
> are negative, thus encouraging the oxidation of the iron, which is, of
> course, rusting. Negatively grounded cars have a negative charge and
> repel the oxygen ions. Can anyone tell me if this is a correct
> assumption? I realize we're getting out of electricity/physics and into
> chemistry.
> Jim Ruwaldt
> '72 TR6 CC79338U
> Bloomington, IN
Jim,
I don't know if that is actually true. It may be the case that positive
grounding was popular when metals and coatings were not as advanced as
they are today (when negative grounding is the trend). With that said,
I will relate that a '36 Dodge I once owned had sat out in a field over
20 years and the body metal was not rusted badly at all compared to my
Spit when I got it. The Dodge had positive ground. I'm sure it was
because the body metal on that tank was about 1/4" thick!!!
Regards,
Joe Curry '63 Spit
|