Talk:Cathodic protection

message: Can we get a quick, easy to read diagram?  I'd make it in MS Paint, but I don't know how this process works (hence the request :))
Bmunden 15:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I found one in the Commons, but is was not English, so I translated it and added it to this page.  Cafe Nervosa (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram 

message: The electrolyte is the environment the structure is place in, so it is permanent just like the pipeline is permanent.   For a pier at a ocean port, the electrolyte is the sea water on one side and soil on the back side.  For an on shore pipeline, the electrolyte is the soil or special backfill material covering the pipeline.  User:Cafe_Nervosa  28SEPT 2009
Galvanising section appears unnecessary.  A single sentence with link to Galvanization, mentioning that galvanising has some aspects of CP would be better.  Agreement? Fdac 04:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove section? 

message: Added a section on standards to connect it to the real world.
List is going to be long if all international and national standards are added 
so some of the standards that have been added might have to be removed , and only the key standards kept.
but it's a start  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.161.130 (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards 

message: First I get the impression that cathodic protection is something physical (a liner) that fits the outside of the pipe.  But then I'm reading that there is something electrical going on.
Could you please explain to me in words that a 5-year-old would understand?
Thank you.
Kekkadean (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm a bit confused 

message: Should this be the title of that paragraph? The problem described is disbondment of coatings as I see it, and a reduction in effectiveness is the effect, not the problem. If there are no objections, I'll re-word it and revise the text slightly to make it more applicable to coating disbondment in general. 13:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness 

message: "Electrodes used in open circuit, such as pipeline cathodic protection monitoring, are not reference cells" : is that stricty true and if it is, is it relevant to that section?Apau98 (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If no-one has any comments regarding that section, I plan to remove or edit the text that needs citationApau98 (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Testing

message: When did this article suddenly become written in American English? I seem to remember it was in British English for some time, certainly all my edits were... Apau98 (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, up to this point:  the article was in British English. Does anyone see any good reason for the changes? I don't wish to get into a bickering war with anyone, but since it had previously been in British English, shouldn't it remain so? See WP:Retain Apau98 (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:ENGVAR the deciding edit is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cathodic_protection&diff=next&oldid=5170363. Wizard191 (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, I agree. Apau98 (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should be English type English in conformance with my very early edits and native language. Cafe Nervosa (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the consensus was that the original article was in American English, and per WP:ENGVAR, that was the deciding edit. Apau98 (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  American English 

message: Should the use of meters for testing be included? dcvg's and Swain Meters? There are many options are there not? for many applications?
Icebreaker83 (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored an article DCVG that might be merged here.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking, DCVG only tests the coating for defects, not the cathodic protection. I would say merging wouldn't be a good idea Apau98 (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Apau98. DCVG and CP are both corrosion control things but quite different. Cafe Nervosa (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing 

message: Cathodic protection rectifier should be merged to this article to give it context; it's very short and the subject doesn't appear notable outside the context of cathodic protection. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I undid the merge.  The article, Cathodic protection rectifier can be expanded.  There are different types of units:  solar powered, gas powered, three phase AC, oil cooled, air cooled, automatic controlled output, constant voltage output, remote monitoring, etc.  The rectifiers are distinct from the anode groundbeds of which there are many different types and distinct from the other components of a CP system.  Cafe Nervosa (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be very nice if Cathodic protection rectifier had grown any in the last few weeks. I recommend it be merged to Cathodic protection until there's enough material to support more than a stub article. It wasn't really an undo of the merge, because now the content is duplicated in both places. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wtshymanski, please take to heart the criticism leveled in your direction regarding deleting the work of others.Cafe Nervosa (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  But isn't that what editing is about? It's a collabrative process - not every word that gets added needs to stay, and Wikiprose is typically awkwardly wordy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I will work to keep these as separate articles.  I am an expert the field and have contributed good material to both. Editting is good, but why piss off contributors? Cafe Nervosa (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone (else) suggest any reason for two articles instead of one? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Support I agree.  The only purpose of a cathodic protection rectifier is to power an impressed current cathodic system.   The rectifiers can be better explained in the context of the Cathodic protection article, unless the amount of material requires a separate article.  Why make readers click over to a stub? --ChetvornoTALK 05:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Support I also agree it should be kept as a subtopic on the basis that they are only used for CP. Apau98 (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest merge

message: I am curious about what the chemical process is during cathodic protection. My limited understanding of chemistry suggests to me that the process should plate the cathode with whatever is the most abundant or mobile or electrochemically available? cation in the groundwater. I am thinking of a specific case where I know that the water that is causing the corrosion that is being protected against using CP has very high calcium levels; around 30,000 ppm. In this case I assume that Calcium metal is plating on the exterior of the cathode.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpdean (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical process(es) during impressed current cathodic protection 

message: I'm sure there are safety concerns, but it seems to me that the section on Safety is just an advertisement for a commercial company (supplying TRs with 'Touch Safe technology'), so I've deleted it.Apau98 (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Safety

message: Interpretation of electrode potential measurements to determine the potential at the interface between the anode of the corrosion cell and the electrolyte requires training[41] and cannot be expected to match the accuracy of measurements done in laboratory work.
Are we comparing measurements in the field to lab work?
89.217.15.89 (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is being compared? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cathodic protection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130106080642/http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/minerals-metals/materials-technology/picon/3149 to http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/minerals-metals/materials-technology/picon/3149
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110510032653/http://events.nace.org:80/library/corrosion/CP/introduction.asp to http://events.nace.org/library/corrosion/CP/Introduction.asp
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111007150828/http://events.nace.org/library/corrosion/glossaryletters/Introduction.asp to http://events.nace.org/library/corrosion/glossaryletters/Introduction.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the German wiki, cathodic protection is a subsection of the corrosion protection article (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korrosionsschutz#Aktiver_kathodischer_Korrosionsschutz).
If anyone knows how to link this into the language selector, feel free to do so. I failed because the German main article is already linked to another entry here and it seems to be not possible to link two.
--Specialsymbol (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  German language article 

message: The vast majority of adjectival forms ending in -ic(al) has a lax vowel in the syllable preceding the suffix, so this is not at all idiosyncratic, whether or not one is aware of the pronunciation of cathode. Moreover, the notation has /æ/ but the audio has /ə/, yet dictionaries like Merriam-Webster and Random House show variants with /ɒ/ and /oʊ/, and /ə/ and /æ/, indicating there is no single accepted pronunciation, which is all the more reason not to include a pronunciation given WP:NOTDIR. Nardog (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation