In this document, we review the findings of the UL modified ASTM D117 Corrosion Testing of 11 brands of Final Coat modules (the protected experiments) and 11 panels without modules (the unprotected experiments). Specifically, we compare the measurements that were made by UL staff, using calipers on the actual panels, to those we made using image processing software, called ImageJ.
The efficacy of protection by the modules, as a group, was calculated and shown in Table 4 for the two methods used in protected and unprotected analysis (calipers and measurement in ImageJ software). The calculation was done as follows, taking for example the case of the rusted ratio determined by the calipers method:
The same procedure was used for the ImageJ method. A ratio greater than one indicates more rusting on the unprotected panels than protected panels. Using ImageJ, the unprotected panels have 15.2 times more rust than the automotive sheet metal panels protected by the Final Coat modules. Using calipers, the unprotected panels have 6.86 times more rust than the automotive sheet metal panels protected by the Final Coat modules.
Testing Certificate: #25563.02
For: Final Coat Inc.
Test Lab Report: #ATL-9560-06-17 Dated: 10/24/2017
Corrosion tests in which the Sodium Chloride electrolyte solution was replaced by a Sodium Carbonate electrolyte solution. Two chambers, each with four panels. One chamber will test four panels protected with modules and the other chamber will test four unprotected panels. Scribing was done using a Dremel rotary tool with an abrasive cut-off wheel. There were a total of eighteen scribes per panel. The electrolyte was 0.01M sodium carbonate. This was from Alfa Aesar, catalog number A17484 (“sodium carbonate decahydrate, 99+%). The modules on the protected panel had a 12 volt power supply connected to them. A couple of times per week a oscilloscope was used to check and make sure that the modules were all functioning correctly throughout the experiment.
Testing for panels connected to the Final Coat modules started on 07/26/2017 and ended on 09/06/2017 (1000 hours). Testing for panels not connected to modules started on 07/27/2017 and ended on 09/07/2017 (1000 hours). Staggered start and end dates were due to the time necessary to make all the scribes as stated in the quote. Samples attached to modules were monitored daily and checked with an oscilloscope twice weekly to ensure functionality throughout. No abnormalities were observed in the process of ensuring the functionality. Following testing, C.A.P. Inc. evaluated the scribes for percentage rusted. Their determination was that the effectiveness was up to 4x less rust on protected panels compared to the unprotected panels
The objective of this experiment was to test the effectiveness of the CM-3000 in protecting scribes on one foot wide by four feet long galvanized steel panels. Eighteen scribes were made through the paint on each panel, purposely introducing damage sites where the effectiveness of protection could be visually assessed. Four protected and four unprotected panels were used in this experiment, with the unprotected panels serving as a control set for this visual comparison. Two separate Q-Fog Spray Chambers were used, one for the unprotected panels and the other for the panels protected by the Final Coat modules.
A modified ASTM B-117 exposure was used, with 0.01M Na2CO3 (sodium carbonate) replacing the ASTM standard 5% w/v NaCl as the electrolyte. We have used 0.01M sodium carbonate extensively in our testing. According to the hypothesis of how the module operates, zinc passivation is required to see an effect, and sodium carbonate is effective in inducing passivation of zinc.
This testing showed that up to 28 times less rust accumulated on a scribe on a protected panel than on an unprotected panel, while on average there was 1.6 times less rust on the protected panel scribes than the unprotected panel scribes. The hypothesis of how the module works is that surface currents generated by the module break down passivation of zinc, allowing zinc to resume its role as an anode that protects steel against continued corrosion. These results are consistent with this hypothesis.
Located in Dublin, Ohio
Previously retained by Federal Trade Commission
Salt Spray over the scribed area only. Test was done to show the efficiency of the Final Coat Electronic Corrosion Module over a surface in the absence of an electrolyte (moisture) film and it’s ability to reduce the rate of corrosion. Test Panel Size: 4 feet x 3 feet.
“The corrosion rate is reduced by 99.7% by the Module on the Test Panel compared with the Control Panel. Even if the difference in the corrosion potential is reduced to -0.100V, the ratio (CR) test/ (CR) control = 0.0204 and hence the corrosion ratio is reduced by 98%. To put these numbers in perspective, imagine that a system (automobile) fails by corrosion without the Module in a time of 1 year. If the Module is attached, the failure time would be 343 years if the potential is displaced by 150 mV in the negative direction, and 49 years if the potential was displaced by only 100mV. Such results are particularly significant when one considers that the average life of a vehicle is in the order of 10 years. Accordingly, these calculations demonstrate that the reduction in corrosion rate is substantial and that the Module is an effective corrosion control device”.
The corrosion potentials measured at the scribes on both panels were approximately the same until exposure times exceeded 60 hours. The potentials then diverged, with that for the test panel eventually becoming more negative than that for the control panel by about 150mV, indicating that an induction time exists for the Corrosion Module.
Located in Toronto, Ontario
In business of testing for over 80 years
Conducted in accordance with ASTM Standard D1654-92
Salt Spray Test performed to ASTM D1654-92 Standards (Test Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated Specimens Subject to Corrosive Environments) Test Panel Size: Four panels each measuring 4 feet by 4 feet were grounded together giving a test surface area equal to 128 square feet. All panels were scribed.
Two painted galvanized automotive sheet metal panels measuring 4 feet x 4 feet Panels prepared in accordance with DCX specifications Scribed to expose bare metal One panel connected to Module Placed in heated salt spray chamber for 1000 hours (40 days)
Four panels each measuring 4 feet x 4 feet Panels connected by conductive wire Each panel scribed to bare metal One panel connected to Module.
“all panels showed no corrosion or rust” Compared with unprotected panel that “showed corrosion and rust damage”
Located in Akron, Ohio
2 Sections (7feet x 15inches) connected by grounding strap
Test conformed with ASTM Standard D1654 Four separate automotive sheet metal panels, each measuring 7 feet x 15 inches Each panel scribed to bare metal One panel connected, other three not connected 35 days (800 hours) of exposure in corrosion chamber
"substantially reduced the corrosion rate".
“test panels…showed a marked degree of severe corrosion and rusting” “Scribes protected by BodyGard system (rebranded Final Coat) were nearly corrosion free” “The BodyGard system appeared to afford substantially more corrosion reduction than that of the factory panels tested” Test repeated two more times with consistent results
Questioning arose in Canadian Competition Bureau hearing as to wheather the induced current is uniformly distributed across the vehicle surface. This issue was studied on an instrumented vehicle
Test was done to show the measurement of “surface current” generated by the Final Coat Electronic Corrosion Module on a typical automobile.
1994 Buick Century Automobile.
Current was found to be uniformly distributed across entire surface of the vehicle.
“...we have reliably and demonstrably sensed surface current all over the surface of this test"
Independant laboratory located near Chicago, Illinois
RF Emissions Measurement. To determine if the module meets the conducted and radiated emissions requirements of the FCC “Code of Federal Regulations.”
The module “did fully meet the conducted radio interference requirements of Section 15.107 and the radiated interference requirements of Section 15.109 of the FCC "Code of Federal Regulations" Title 47, Part 15, Subpart B for Class B equipment.”
Electromagnetic Compatibility. To determine if the module compromises or interferes with automotive electrical systems.
The module was compliant with requirements in all tests performed. “Compliant = Meets the broadband and narrowband emissions requirements specified in the Commission Directive 2004/104/EC test specification.”