[tabby title=”CCT Laboratories”]

CC Technologies Inc.

Independent laboratory
Located in Dublin, Ohio
Previously retained by Federal Trade Commission
Employs 14 Doctorate level scientists and 35 engineers

Test conducted: 2002-03 for the Canadian government’s Competition Bureau

Type of Test: 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.

Test Results: “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”.

Note: 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 to exert corrosion control.

[tabby title=”ULC Laboratories”]

ULC Laboratories Salt Spray Test:

Performed to ASTM D1654-92 Standards (Test Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada

Independent laboratory located in Toronto
In business of testing for over 80 years
Conducted in accordance with ASTM Standard D1654

Test conducted: 2001
Type of Test: 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.

Single Panel Test
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)

Conclusion on Single Panel Test
Unprotected panel “showed corrosion and rust damage”
Panel connected to Module “showed no corrosion or rust”

Multiple Panel Test
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

Conclusion on Multiple Panel Test
“all panels showed no corrosion or rust”
Compared with unprotected panel that “showed corrosion and rust damage”

[tabby title=”Smithers’ Scientific Services Inc.”]

Smithers’ Scientific Services Inc.

Independent Laboratory located in Akron, Ohio
Testing conducted in 1997 on BodyGard module (rebranded Final Coat in 2004)

Type of Test: Humidity Test
Test Panel Size: 2 sections (7 feet x 15 inches) connected by grounding strap
Test Results: “substantially reduced the corrosion rate”.

Test Methodology
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

Conclusion
“test panels…showed a marked degree of severe corrosion and rusting”
“Scribes protected by BodyGard system 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

[tabby title=”Ohio State Electro Science Laboratory”]

Ohio State Electro Science Laboratory

  • Question arose in Canadian Competition Bureau hearing as to whether the induced current is uniformly distributed across the vehicle surface.
  • This issue was studied by Ohio State University’s Electrosciences Laboratory on an instrumented vehicle.
  • Current was found to be uniformly distributed across entire surface of vehicle.

Test conducted: 2004 for the Canadian government’s Competition Bureau
Type of Test: Test was done to show the measurement of “surface current” generated by the Final Coat Electronic Corrosion Module on a typical automobile.
Test Panel Size: 1994 Buick Century Automobile.

Test Results: “…we have reliably and demonstrably sensed surface current all over the surface of this test automobile”. Fifty-eight (58) points were measured on the vehicle, from the back to the front, from the top to the bottom.


[tabby title=”Elite Electronic Engineering Inc.”]

Elite Electronic Engineering Inc.

Independent laboratory located near Chicago, Illinois

Test conducted: 2007
Type of Test: RF Emissions Measurement. To determine if the module meets the conducted and radiated emissions requirements of the FCC “Code of Federal Regulations.”
Test Results: 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.”

Test conducted: 2007
Type of Test: Electromagnetic Compatibility. To determine if the module compromises or interferes with automotive electrical systems.
Test Results: 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.”

[tabbyending]