Rust removal from blades - experiments

[Query]

Why would I want to do that? A waste of time and money.

If this description

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Universal-Stone-The-All-Purpose-Stone-That-Foams-Cleans-Polishes-And-Protects-Sponge-Included/983882969

is correct, Universal stone is "non-abrasive". If that's perfectly true, I could spend forever at what you propose.

At first glance, that description sounds a little too good to be true. How does something remove lime and hard water deposits without being acidic, or at least containing water? How can polishing clay (which I assume to be fine grained worn rock grains, such as quartz) be biodegradable, or perfectly non-abrasive?

[tstop4me]

At first glance, that description sounds a little too good to be true. How does something remove lime and hard water deposits without being acidic, or at least containing water?

<<Emphasis Added>>  If you read the Product Details you cited, you will find the following application instructions:

The cleaner is packaged as a dry, compressed powder and has an indefinite shelf life. .... Wipe a damp sponge across the stone a few times. Squeeze the sponge to produce foam and begin cleaning. Rinse the cleaned surface with water or polish with a damp cloth. Let the stone dry after use, then close the container.  <<Emphasis Added>>

[tstop4me]

How can polishing clay (which I assume to be fine grained worn rock grains, such as quartz) be biodegradable, or perfectly non-abrasive?

<<Emphasis Added>>  Again, if you read the Product Details you cited, they never state the product is "perfectly non-abrasive" (whatever that means; see further discussion below), only non-abrasive:

"The cleaner is non-abrasive and is safe for use on silverplate or heirloom silver."

And what constitutes "non-abrasive" will depend on the surface the cleaner is applied to, the duration of scrubbing, and the resolution of the thickness removed, among other factors (e.g., assuming the abrasiveness of the applicator is not significant).

With respect to compatible surfaces, the Product Details state:

"Use it on stainless steel, silver, gold, copper, brass, aluminium or chrome; on tiles, marble, granite, floors, countertops and backsplashes, sinks, tubs, toilets and taps, stove tops, windows and cabinets; on glass, crystal, enamel, plastic, acrylic, painted wood, ceramics or jewelry. The cleaner is non-abrasive and is safe for use on silverplate or heirloom silver.
....
* Safe for: Stainless steel, silver, gold, copper, brass, aluminum, chrome, fine crystal, marble, granite, enamel, ceramic, acrylic, vinyl, wood, jewelry, shoes and more ..."

With respect to duration of cleaning, no details are given.  But for household cleaning products of this sort, we typically think of scrubbing times on the order of seconds or minutes (maybe max of 10 minutes or so), and not scrubbing times on the order of hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, or centuries.

With respect to resolution of thickness removed, there are instruments that, for specific materials under specific conditions, can detect the removal of a single atomic layer.  But for household cleaners, we typically consider them to be non-abrasive if they don't cause visible (to the eye without the assistance of instruments)  scratches (as in the famous Bon Ami slogan).

[Kaitsu]

Why would I want to do that? A waste of time and money.

a) Because it was you whom said following...

The person abrades the whole side of the blade. So they are gradually removing the chrome (?) plating that helps prevent future rust. Those scratches tell me they are removing a fair bit of metal. Perhaps it would be better, to only abrade the bottom "chrome relief region", where is no plating?

I wonder if using a coarse abrasive like that could alter the thickness profile of the bottom of the blade in a non-uniform manner, sufficiently to affect skating.

You could be even ones a man and proof that you was right, by trying to polish chrome layer away with Universal Stone.

b) The time you are busy on other activities might be luxury time for others.

[Query]

And what constitutes "non-abrasive" will depend on the surface the cleaner is applied to, the duration of scrubbing, and the resolution of the thickness removed, among other factors (e.g., assuming the abrasiveness of the applicator is not significant)...

With respect to duration of cleaning, no details are given.  But for household cleaning products of this sort, we typically think of scrubbing times on the order of seconds or minutes (maybe max of 10 minutes or so), and not scrubbing times on the order of hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, or centuries.

With respect to resolution of thickness removed, there are instruments that, for specific materials under specific conditions, can detect the removal of a single atomic layer.  But for household cleaners, we typically consider them to be non-abrasive if they don't cause visible (to the eye without the assistance of instruments)  scratches (as in the famous Bon Ami slogan).

Where did you find this definition of "nonabrasive"?

I tried without success to find a US legal definition of the term online. What I did find is that some US laws refer to Merriam-Webster's dictionary for terms not defined within the law.

www.merriam-webster.com defines "<a href=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonabrasive>nonabrasive</a> (as an adjective) as "not abrasive", It defines "<a href=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abrasive>abrasive</a> as "causing damage, wear, or removal of surface material by grinding or rubbing : tending to abrade"

At least in my personal experience water alone will not remove lime or other significant hard water deposits, if you use the same hard tap water that left the deposits in the first place. Even if you soften it, it would take virtually forever, unless you are talking about surfaces like smooth glass which it barely adheres. Have you ever tried to remove lime from a fiberglass bathroom shower stall? You need acid (preferably strong acid solution like Lime Away or CLR), combined with with a lot of scrubbing using strong abrasives (like a hard steel brush). Some people claim that vinegar + baking soda + scrubbing is enough, but I couldn't make significant headway that way on a stall that had a few years worth of lime deposit.

[tstop4me]

At least in my personal experience water alone will not remove lime or other significant hard water deposits, if you use the same hard tap water that left the deposits in the first place. Even if you soften it, it would take virtually forever, unless you are talking about surfaces like smooth glass which it barely adheres. Have you ever tried to remove lime from a fiberglass bathroom shower stall? You need acid (preferably strong acid solution like Lime Away or CLR), combined with with a lot of scrubbing using strong abrasives (like a hard steel brush). Some people claim that vinegar + baking soda + scrubbing is enough, but I couldn't make significant headway that way on a stall that had a few years worth of lime deposit.

<<Emphasis added>>  Who (besides you here) is talking about "water alone"?  I was merely responding to your previous post:

At first glance, that description sounds a little too good to be true. How does something remove lime and hard water deposits without being acidic, or at least containing water?

<<Emphasis added>>  I'm not commenting on whether what you've posted is accurate or not.  I'm only saying that if you read the instructions (that you cited) for Universal Stone, you will note that water is added (via a damp sponge) to the Universal Stone product, which is supplied as a dry powder.  So the cleaning is done by a combination of water and Universal Stone product; therefore, the final cleaning agent (a) is not water alone and (b) does at least contain water.  Whether it works or not, I don't know; I've never used the stuff.  But it does satisfy one of the criteria that you have stipulated.

[tstop4me]

Where did you find this definition of "nonabrasive"?

I tried without success to find a US legal definition of the term online. What I did find is that some US laws refer to Merriam-Webster's dictionary for terms not defined within the law.

www.merriam-webster.com defines "<a href=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonabrasive>nonabrasive</a> (as an adjective) as "not abrasive", It defines "<a href=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abrasive>abrasive</a> as "causing damage, wear, or removal of surface material by grinding or rubbing : tending to abrade"

Let's rewind to your post that I was responding to:

How can polishing clay (which I assume to be fine grained worn rock grains, such as quartz) be biodegradable, or perfectly non-abrasive?

Which I interpret to mean:  "If it contains polishing clay, it can't be non-abrasive."

To which, I replied:

And what constitutes "non-abrasive" will depend on the surface the cleaner is applied to, the duration of scrubbing, and the resolution of the thickness removed, among other factors (e.g., assuming the abrasiveness of the applicator is not significant).

I'll expand upon my previous response.  In order to determine whether or not a cleaner is "non-abrasive", you first need to specify the criteria for "non-abrasive".  One way to do this would be to specify a maximum removal rate (thickness removed/scrubbing time) under specified conditions.  If I specify the maximum removal rate to be sufficiently low, then Universal Stone will fail the test for "non-abrasive".  Of course, I can specify the maximum removal rate to be so low such that virtually all cleaners will fail the test; e.g., I set the maximum removal rate to 1 nanometer/hr.  On the flip side, if I set the maximum removal rate sufficiently high, then Universal Stone will pass the test.  As far as I know, there is no such specification for "non-abrasive".

But with respect to consumer cleaners, what are we typically interested in?  If I'm buying a non-abrasive auto cleaner, I want a cleaner that won't scratch the paint.  If I'm buying a non-abrasive eyeglass cleaner, I want a cleaner that won't scratch the lenses.   ...  So are there plausible criteria under which Universal Stone could be declared "non-abrasive"?  In the absence of any government regulations, and in the absence of citations to any industry standards, yes.  So, you can't simply dismiss Universal Stone's claim to be non-abrasive merely on the basis of "If it contains polishing clay, it can't be non-abrasive."

[Query]

OK. You are right. If there are no clear standards, an advertiser can apply whatever definition they want.

So... Let's use that no scratches to the naked eye definition. A "nonabrasive" skate sharpener, would be great, right?


I have similar problems with a lot of ads.

"Design without compromise." 

"99 and 44/100% pure soap."

"The leading [fill in any product category].

Electric heaters that are said to be much more efficient than other brands.

Electric motors whose horsepower is much greater than nominal input amps*volts/746.

Kitchen appliances touted to the public as what restaurants use, but not meeting the cleanability standards that restaurants must follow, or not UL listed as safe for home use, and/or less heavy duty than commercial models, and/or that trip modern home AFCIs.

[tstop4me]

OK. You are right. If there are no clear standards, an advertiser can apply whatever definition they want.

It's a more fundamental issue than that.  The issue arises when you try to categorize a property of a material into a simple binary classification "X/non-X"  when in fact X has a continuous or quasi-continuous range of values from XMIN to XMAX:  "electrically conducting/electrically non-conducting (electrically insulating)", "optically transparent/optically non-transparent (optically opaque)" , "toxic/non-toxic", ....

[Query]

I guess if one wanted to know how much if any chrome plating was removed by a rust removal process, one might be able to use a micrometer. Of course, you might need to make alignment marks, so you would measure in exactly the same place, and one would need to make sure one wasn't testing in a rusted spot, where removal was desirable.

As far as you know (please don't test this on your expensive blades), would Universal Stone remove less chrome than Bar Keepers Friend, and/or less of the edge?

Based on this ingredient list, it looks like the main abrasive in Bar Keeper's friend is feldspar. If I am correct in guessing (and it really just is a guess) that the main abrasive in Universal stone is quartz (assuming the clay is mostly made from naturally polished sand, which is mostly quartz), this page says quartz is harder (which in this case means scratch resistant) than feldspar, and typical steels lie in between the two in hardness, so in that sense Bar Keepers Friend might be less likely to scratch steel.

But I'm not sure that argument is valid. For one thing, there might be a huge difference in the hardness of steels.

Plus I'm not sure how to find a similar hardness (scratch resistance) rating for chrome plating. I assume it is less hard than steel, otherwise there would be no "chrome relief" zone.


On a separate note, I think the main reason people need to remove rust from reasonably well treated blades is that they aren't using stainless steel blades. Given reasonable treatment, it isn't nearly as much a problem on stainless blades.

Can you explain in very simple terms the probable reason why MK and JW don't use stainless steel in most of their reasonably high end figure skating blades? You have said before that stainless is harder to sharpen (specifically, that some grinding wheels don't sharpen stainless well) - is it also harder to cut, given that they now use laser cutters? (Note: melting points of steels are in the same approximate range) Or to temper, and re-harden? Or is it harder to weld? Or, since they say what they use is a "spring steel", does it have better mechanical properties than stainless? Or is it economic: maybe they want the blades to corrode fast, so they are replaced more often?

At one point Katisu pointed out that magnetism could make it harder to sharpen blades, because the filings stick to the blade, and this site claims that stainless is magnetic, whereas "clean steel" is not. Would that significantly affect manufacturing ease?

Their pricey Phoenix blades do use 420 stainless, so they must not think it too bad.

They have been in business long enough that I assume they have thought the matter through. I would think there must be a good reason, or combination of reasons.

Either that, or they think customers want to get what they have always gotten.

[tstop4me]

I guess if one wanted to know how much if any chrome plating was removed by a rust removal process, one might be able to use a micrometer. Of course, you might need to make alignment marks, so you would measure in exactly the same place, and one would need to make sure one wasn't testing in a rusted spot, where removal was desirable.

As far as you know (please don't test this on your expensive blades), would Universal Stone remove less chrome than Bar Keepers Friend, and/or less of the edge?

During one phase of my R&D career, I did extensive studies of polishing of specific semiconductor wafers by specialized techniques.  So I'm well aware of the methods and equipment needed for such studies.  Since removal rates of chrome by rust removers appear to be of particular interest to you, I'll leave the work to you.  As for me, I currently have Paramount blades with 440C stainless steel runners; no chrome plate; rust is not an issue.  When I need to remove rust from plain carbon steel blades for friends of mine, I use the method I posted earlier in this thread:

I tend to stay away from acid-based rust removers, and use a method similar to yours for general purpose rust removal.  Except I use Liquid Wrench Penetrating Oil, instead of petroleum jelly, with Scotch Brite.

On a separate note, I think the main reason people need to remove rust from reasonably well treated blades is that they aren't using stainless steel blades. Given reasonable treatment, it isn't nearly as much a problem on stainless blades.

Can you explain in very simple terms the probable reason why MK and JW don't use stainless steel in most of their reasonably high end figure skating blades? You have said before that stainless is harder to sharpen (specifically, that some grinding wheels don't sharpen stainless well) - is it also harder to cut, given that they now use laser cutters? (Note: melting points of steels are in the same approximate range) Or to temper, and re-harden? Or is it harder to weld? Or, since they say what they use is a "spring steel", does it have better mechanical properties than stainless? Or is it economic: maybe they want the blades to corrode fast, so they are replaced more often?

At one point Katisu pointed out that magnetism could make it harder to sharpen blades, because the filings stick to the blade, and this site claims that stainless is magnetic, whereas "clean steel" is not. Would that significantly affect manufacturing ease?

Their pricey Phoenix blades do use 420 stainless, so they must not think it too bad.

They have been in business long enough that I assume they have thought the matter through. I would think there must be a good reason, or combination of reasons.

Either that, or they think customers want to get what they have always gotten.

* You asked the same question before in another thread:

If you did call - I would love to know if there is a good reason MK/JW uses non-stainless steels, as opposed to hardenable stainless alloys like 440. 

To which I replied:

Well, the new Wilson Phoenix blades are advertised as having 420 stainless steel runners (https://www.johnwilsonskates.com/phoenix).  So they're slowly coming around.

But remember, many manufacturing steps are fine tuned for the specific composition of steel.  Wilson & MK have had their manufacturing lines setup for plain carbon steel for many, many decades.  Unless they see a whole lot of skaters abandoning them for stainless steel blades made by competitors, there's little financial incentive for them to change over.   As I've written before, I wish Japanese manufacturers would enter this market (look at their upheavals in the cutlery, camera, and auto industries, e.g.); but skate blades so far appears to be too small a market to interest them.

Note that financial considerations are driving much of these decisions.  As far as I know, only SkateScience, a relatively niche supplier in a relatively niche sport, exclusively uses stainless steel for all their blades (I tried to confirm their current offerings, but I couldn't connect to their website).  Jackson Ultima, Riedell Eclipse, and Paramount all include a mix of stainless steel and plain carbon steel models in their product portfolio.

In an interesting twist, Riedell now uses stainless steel blades in all their low-end kits (https://www.ice.riedellskates.com/Catalog/Casual-Series?categoryId=&filters=&sortby=1&page=1&pageSize=8&criteria=&view=list&columns=572b1e46-309a-4eaf-bb29-a43a00f436d43e9fe427-f6e9-4461-875b-a40300ff7c8a30d49142-2d5f-4e19-942d-a43a00f436cd).  But these low-end blades do not bear the "Eclipse" label.  And unlike the Eclipse blades, these low-end blades (a) are made in China instead of Canada, (b) are not sold as separate blades in US and Canada, and (c) do not have a specified grade of stainless steel.

* The grades of both plain carbon steel and stainless steel used in figure skate blades are magnetic.  I haven't a clue as to what "clean steel" is (steel from which dirt has been removed?  ).  [ETA:  By the way, the article you cited is wrong.  They claim stainless steel is magnetic because it contains chromium.  By industry definition of stainless steel, all stainless steels must contain a specified minimum percentage of chromium.  But some grades of stainless steel are non-magnetic.]

[Kaitsu]

Can you explain in very simple terms the probable reason why MK and JW don't use stainless steel in most of their reasonably high end figure skating blades?

Stainless steel is more expensive and harder to be machined. https://evden.com/why-is-stainless-steel-hard-to-machine/

Shiny chrome is visually more pretty than matte stainless steel. This is the reason why quite many stainless steel blades does have stainless steel runners and aluminum frame. Most of the polished the stainless steel blades are pure grab. Polishing stainless steel to mirror finish rounds the edges and very often ruins datum's which are used to check edges evenness. So far I have not seen any polished stainless steel blades what I could consider to use. To clarify, I have never hold Skate Science blades on my hands.

General information related to steels.
https://casiberia.com/resource/steel-information/330

I do have all these three: The Pink Stuff, Bar Keepers Friend and Universal Stone. I will not start to measure how much they remove material, but I can do some other test if you can provide good ideas how to test them. Reason why I do not even try to measure how much they remove material is that it would require such a high measuring accuracy, that I cannot provide it. Measuring less than one micrometer changes is not realistic scenario even I could use very accurate measuring devices. Measuring uncertainly is so huge compared to the material removal rate that I can bet that none of us cannot measure enough accurately. To see some measurable wear, I should polish probably hours and for that I do not have any interest or motivation. Even I would polish several hours, how to ensure that I am doing everything 100% identically.

Most likely Universal Stone is most abrasive from these three. This claim is based purely to color of washing sponge after treatment.

[Query]

I guess it also makes sense for blade makers to have products sold at a range of prices, with the most desirable properties only in the most expensive.

I'm not sure how thick good brand skate plating is.  I wouldn't have guessed that a few microns abrasion would matter - though I guess people who have to remove rust over and over could eventually abrade enough that way to matter.

So many different steels!