@evofxdwg: Yes, it's definitely possible to prevent corrosion using impressed DC current. This is done mainly for large structures; it tends not to be practical in smaller applications. Of course, this works the other way around, too: stray currents in the water can accelerate corrosion of outboard engines, for instance. A good source of information on designing cathodic protection systems for structures is U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical Manual 5-811-7, which can be found online.
Thanks for that reference Dave Palmer. I will definitely look into it. I became interested in the subject several years ago when i installed a Ground Source Heat Pump in my home. I was interested in how to protect metallic pipe in the ground, or immersed in a well. Well water is mildly acidic in my area. But im assuming pipe in the ground in contact with various types of sand/clay might be a different, more complex problem. Metallic pipe, or an immersed metallic coil heat exchanger would be much better for heat transfer than the recommended formulation of poly pipe recommended by the Ground Source Heat Pump industry. (After looking at the problem a bit, i decided only titanium might be viable. I did not install metallic pipe because i could not obtain a cheap source of surplus titanium tubing or coils, nor reliably solve the interconnection problem due to corrsion of clamps)
PS: WOW I just looked at that document - way more info than i found before. I will digest it at home thoroughly!
This is a simple and yet very informative write up. THANKS! It would have been useful for some of the engineers at Chrysler Corp to have been a bit more familiar with this a few years ago. The corrosive failure mode of extruded aluminum alloy bumpers is very impressive, in addition to being quite discouraging. Of course, sea water is not nearly as salty as the saturated brine solution found on our Southeast Michigan roadways every winter. So of course, just because cars might survive a dunk in the ocean idoes not mean that they would last very long here.
Probably it would be a good idea for all schools offering engineering courses to add a course in corrosion, and to put it at a senior level.
Good point, Beth. When I studied engineering, we took two semesters of chemistry and one of material science (or metallurgy, which was more typical back then), but the chemistry of corrosion was never discussed, as I recall. Very nice article.
In EE, we had two semesters of chemistry in freshman year. (Never got a lot of use out of it or learned much.) We had no metallurgy at all, no materials science. I guess that was in the ME curriculum, but from reading Dave's excellent piece here, I can see that some exposure would've been beneficial. I guess everything eventually returns to its base form if exposed to the elements long enough.
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.