Talk:Galvanization

Not a clue what this is trying to say.
It seems to contradict itself.

"Galvanic paint, a precursor to hot-dip galvanizing, was patented by Stanislas Sorel, of Paris, on June 10, 1837, as an adoption of a term from a highly fashionable field of contemporary science, despite having no evident relation to it." 104.253.38.11 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Untitled
This page is rather confusing. It doesn't explicitly define galvanization.
 * I agree, no clear or definitive explanation. Does this article need a clean up tag?? -Hamdev Guru 20:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * is it necessary to link to the Chemical Brothers when, there is no article explicitly about the song Galvanize, surely if people work looking for the Chemical Brothers they wouldn't type that particular song. Would a disambig page be useful?? Hamdev Guru 20:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not very definitive... -

This page definitely needs a cleanup and a disambig Maelnuneb 18:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

-I would like to suggest a spelling change of the main title, to the English: 'galvaniSation'. Tommason 11:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

everywhere I see it's actually spelled 'galvanizing'. Also, there is no mention of "cold galvanizing" here. Sumter sells something called Galvalox which is described as 'cold galvanizing'. I'm trying to determine exactly what it is and how it works. Would this be a good add to the page?-micah

Strength not reduced
To my knowledge it is not correct that the process reduces the strength in any measurable way. Is there anyone who can actually document this claim in the article, or is it just someone who tried rationalizing while writing on this article???

Googling a little gives a number of sources supporting my view.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larkuur (talk • contribs) 10:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

- So, no response. I have removed the contested line. And rewritten it, as can be seen in the article. Larkuur (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is well known and will be in any decent text on structural design. It's not an issue for mild steel, but it is for highly-stressed components in high tensile alloy steels. The problem isn't that the steel strength is "reduced" as such (as simple bulk strength), but that the risk of cracking is increased so that the design limits have to be reduced. In practice, what actually happens is that highly-stressed components avoid galvanisation. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Great... That is also more or less exactly what I wrote in my edit of the actual article... Feel free to look it over. Larkuur (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain, but I think there are cracking mechanisms involved, such as Stress corrosion cracking, that are more than hydrogen embrittlement at the time of galvanising. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Modern meaning: dipping in molten zinc
This section has some errors or misstatements. Zinc is not more corrosion-resistant than steel! Iron-base alloys are higher in the galvanic series (more noble or cathodic) than zinc (more active or anodic). Zinc corrodes more easily than almost all other metals except magnesium, in most environments. The zinc layer does act as a protective barrier, but the sacrificial anode effect is what protects the edges, nicks and scratches on galvanized (the American spelling) steel. Properly done hot-dip galvanization forms three intermetallic Zn-Fe layers between the zinc shell and the steel substrate. Excess ZnO and Zn(OH)2 are problematic on the outer 100% Zn layer and can be avoided by a chromate conversion coating immediately following the hot dip. Some footnotes or Suggested Reading, such as the two books I have cited, would improve the article.His Manliness (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

History
The fourth point is unecessary, and in fact out of place. It does not reveal another step in the history of galvanization, but rather further expounds the third point. GBMorris 12:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Electrodeposition
The link to Electrodeposition leads to a disambiguation page... does anyone know to which article it should point, or is it both? --Explodicle 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably both. There doesn't appear to be much difference between the proccesses each article describes. --BigChicken 10:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Add a link to our website
The American Galvanizers Association's website www.galvanizeit.org has over 500 pages of technical information on hot-dip galvanizing. This page is fairly brief and others have mentioned it is not descriptive enough. I would suggest linking to our site for more information. As a non-profit trade association, our goal is to educate first, so the material is straight forward and informative, rather than fluff. 71.218.208.72 21:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Melissa Lindsley, Marketing Manager, American Galvanizers Association

Z/S
As is normal in US English, the title of this article is "Galvanization". However, much of the text uses the Commonwealth English for "galvanisation". Surely there should be some consistency here? As a Commonwealth English user, I would personally prefer that to be used for both the text and the title, but if the title is in US English, so should be the text. Grutness...wha?  10:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching and pointing this out; I have fixed the lead paragraph of the article, which was inconsistent with the rest of the article and its title. In the future, please feel free to fix it yourself, in due accordance with WP:ENGVAR. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason I didn't fix it myself is I felt it needed further discussion, given that the problem exists in a range of articles on the subject of galvanis/zation, some of them using the Commonwealth spelling in the title (e.g., Corrugated galvanised iron). Some consistency is likely needed across all these articles, and ENGVAR makes it clear that it is only for inconsistency within articles (WP:ENGVAR's stress). Under those circumstances I brought it here for discussion before anyone decided to take it into their own hands by assuming WP:ENGVAR covered the problem. Grutness...wha?  23:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the situation you describe appears to be long-standing. Until somebody takes on the project of getting a consensus on all the related articles, at least we should try to keep each article self-consistent. You're welcome to propose a more comprehensive solution, starting with compiling a list of all the affected articles. Cheers!  Reify-tech (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A few years ago I would have done just that, but I've semi-retired from most Wikipedia work, and have found through long experience that there is an inability to gain consensus 99% of the time a specific "project for gaining consensus" enters the picture. It's usually far quicker to try to start a discussion on a talk page - which is what I've tried to do here. Pat solutions aren't always the best way around this sort of situation. Grutness...wha?  23:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We should follow WP:ENGVAR (and by implication fix consistency within articles, but leave inconsistency between articles). ENGVAR exists, not to fix linguistic issues, but to avoid perennial edit wars. There has recently been a tendency that "loudest edit warrior wins" on US/UK spelling issues, and that's a bad one. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Problems in galvanising big diameter poles
We have a galvanising plant of size 12m x 1m x1.25m deep kettle. We have to gal a tapered pole having a 1sqm by 50mm thick base plate welded to this 860 dia pole of length 10 meters.We are getting a smooth finish but in the top inner one third portion it remains in black condition even though the entire pole sinks into the zinc. The width is about 250mm with about 2.5m length. We have tried dipping in various angles but it is not satisfactory. Some say it is an air lock. With this kettle dimension can any suggestion be made for which we will be grateful. Regards Krishan Chopra Director Kavcon engineers p ltd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.48.248 (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Galvanization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222165139/http://www.galvanizing.org.uk/about_galvanizing/corrosion_performance/atmospheric_resistance to http://www.galvanizing.org.uk/about_galvanizing/corrosion_performance/atmospheric_resistance

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved per consensus  Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Galvanization → Galvanizing – The lead says "galvanizing" is the more commonly-used term. The article uses it more often than the rather obscure "galvanization". Please don't let this be a grammatically correct but factually wrong thing? Lithopsian (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both seem to be equally common as terms (in the context of applying a zinc coating, not referring to the emotion). Unless there is definitive proof galvanizing is more commonly used for the industrial process, I'd say changing it is unnecessary.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Non-scientifically, if you search Google for "galvanization steel" it suggests "galvanizing steel", which then returns somewhat more results. Not the best example though.  Google Scholar shows a more decisive difference, and Google Books is overwhelming.  Simple searches for galvanizing vs galvanization are heavily contaminated with non-metallurgical uses of the words.  Wikipedia clones and copies also appear to contaminate the simple web search results.  UK spellings show similar differences in favour of galvanizing as the more commonly-used term, possibly even stronger.  You can get similar results for related searches involving terms like "hot dip".  While this is all very interesting and esoteric, it is damning that the article itself uses the word galvanization only in a single wikilink: hot dip galvanization, and that article then uses the word galvanizing throughout.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "Galvanizing" can imply a different emotional context, and so its better to keep it titled in a way which doesn't add to confusion, given that both words are accurate and common for describing the coating process. -- Netoholic @ 02:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, but move hot-dip galvanization and electrogalvanization as well (if relisted, it would be beneficial to add those to the list to get some more eyes on the issue). Book search for "hot-dip galvaniz***" and "electrogalvaniz***" shows that the -ing forms outnumber the -ion forms by roughly 10:1. The -ion forms do not even register on ngrams: . No such user (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Galvanization is more common in all academic sources. This title don't need any change. The claim that Galvanizing is more common has been unsourced in the article for years and now removed. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Uncited material in need of citations
I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Protective action

 * The zinc acts as a sacrificial metal to protect the underlying iron/steel and thus acts as a sacrificial anode. In the event the underlying metal becomes exposed, protection can continue as long as there is zinc close enough to be electrically coupled. After all of the zinc in the immediate area is consumed, localized corrosion of the base metal can occur.

History and etymology
The etymology of galvanization is via French from the name of Italian scientist Luigi Galvani. However this is an obscure back-formation; Galvani had no involvement in zinc coating.

The earliest use of the term was in late 18th-century scientific research and medical practice by Galvani and meant the stimulation of a muscle by the application of an electric current. Although Galvani was the first to study this, it was Alessandro Volta who then developed a better understanding of its cause and effect. Galvani's explanation of 'animal electricity' as a cause was replaced by Volta's invention of the electric battery and its use to stimulate animal tissue. Despite the superseding of his experimental results, it was Galvani's name rather than Volta's which became associated with the field.

...such as to "galvanize into action" meaning stimulating a complacent person or group to take action.

Methods
This deficiency is a consideration affecting the manufacture of wire rope and other highly stressed products.

The protection provided by hot-dip galvanizing is insufficient for products that will be constantly exposed to corrosive materials such as acids, including acid rain in outdoor uses. For these applications, more expensive stainless steel is preferred. Some nails made today are galvanized. Nonetheless, electroplating is used on its own for many outdoor applications because it is cheaper than hot-dip zinc coating and looks good when new. Another reason not to use hot-dip zinc coating is that for bolts and nuts of size M10 (US 3/8") or smaller, the thick hot-dipped coating fills in too much of the threads, which reduces strength (because the dimension of the steel prior to coating must be reduced for the fasteners to fit together). This means that for cars, bicycles, and many other light mechanical products, the practical alternative to electroplating bolts and nuts is not hot-dip zinc coating, but making the fasteners from stainless steel or titanium.

The size of crystallites (grains) in galvanized coatings is a visible and aesthetic feature, known as "spangle". By varying the number of particles added for heterogeneous nucleation and the rate of cooling in a hot-dip process, the spangle can be adjusted from an apparently uniform surface (crystallites too small to see with the naked eye) to grains several centimetres wide. Visible crystallites are rare in other engineering materials, even though they are usually present.

Parts and zinc powder are tumbled in a sealed rotating drum. Around 300 °C, zinc will diffuse into the substrate to form a zinc alloy. The advance surface preparation of the goods can be carried out by shot blasting. The process is also known as "dry galvanizing", because no liquids are involved; this can avoid possible problems caused by hydrogen embrittlement. The dull-grey crystal structure of the zinc diffusion coating has a good adhesion to paint, powder coatings, or rubber. It is a preferred method for coating small, complex-shaped metals, and for smoothing rough surfaces on items formed with sintered metal.

Eventual corrosion
Although galvanizing will inhibit attack of the underlying steel, rusting will be inevitable after some decades' exposure to weather, especially if exposed to acidic conditions. For example, corrugated iron sheet roofing will start to degrade within a few years despite the protective action of the zinc coating. Marine and salty environments also lower the lifetime of galvanized iron because the high electrical conductivity of sea water increases the rate of corrosion, primarily through converting the solid zinc to soluble zinc chloride which simply washes away. Galvanized car frames exemplify this; they corrode much faster in cold environments due to road salt, though they will last longer than unprotected steel.

Galvanized piping
...and whether the pipe was galvanized on both the inside and outside, or just the outside.

Since World War 2, copper and plastic piping have replaced galvanized piping for interior drinking water service, but galvanized steel pipes are still used in outdoor applications requiring steel's superior mechanical strength. The use of galvanized pipes lends some truth to the urban myth that water purity in outdoor water faucets is lower, but the actual impurities (iron, zinc, calcium) are harmless.

The presence of galvanized piping detracts from the appraised value of housing stock because piping can fail, increasing the risk of water damage. Galvanized piping will eventually need to be replaced if housing stock is to outlast a 50 to 70 year life expectancy, and some jurisdictions require galvanized piping to be replaced before sale. One option to extend the life expectancy of existing galvanized piping is to line it with an epoxy resin.

History and etymology?
There's a little bit of history here, but nothing as far as etymology. I added a sentence, but it might be good to flesh it out a bit. Masaryk19 (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Protective Action
"... the following main ways" is followed by a single bullet (with a sub-bullet): one main way. Presumably the other main way is cathodic protection, but it's not mentioned. Tom Permutt (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Luigi Galvani not mentioned?
How can an article about Galvanization not mention Luigi Galvani. Isn’t the process named in honor of his pioneering electrical work? I think that belongs in here somewhere. 108.17.115.194 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)