Well, that's interesting. So, maybe the positive ground doesn't have
anything to do with the rusting.
Jim Ruwaldt
'72 TR6 CC79338U
Bloomington, IN
On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Joe Curry wrote:
> 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
>
|