Talk:Galvanic anode

It should not be merged, but referenced. Cathodic protection is a process that a galvanic anode is only a part of and is conceptually different. --Dennis 00:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur. There are two main types of CP. Use of galvanic anodes is one, and the other is current cathodic protection(ICCP). This uses an AC powered rectifier and has many operational differences from the galvanic anode CP. FYI I'm a CP expert from NACE International and use both galvanic and ICCP CP systems. --Derek 12 September 2005

On the other hand I am not an expert but I got here from sacrificial anode. I would have thought that sacrificial anode should be merged with galvanic anode, but the article on sacrificial anodes seems to think that the term can be applied to plating anodes (were the metal is not sacrificed but transferred to the cathode). Is this an error or is it a usage that I have never met?

I think that sacrificial anode , as it applies to cathodic protection should be redirected to galvanic anode, however I don't know enough about the plating process and the terminology in that industry.
Derek Cafe Nervosa 23:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

== Merger proposal ==

This appears to be a bit of an old thread, but I'd like to propose that the articles on galvanic anodes and and sacrificial anodes be merged. They are basically the same thing and the articles are duplicating the same basic information The 'galvanic anode' article is not related to the plating industry, it's just an alternative term for 'sacrificial anode' in my opinion. I would think 'galvanic' is probably the more satisfactory term, technically, so the text on 'sacrificial' should be merged into 'galvanic' and a redirect added to 'sacrificial'. Apau98 (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've copied the text from Sacrificial anode and Galvanic anode, revised it and added references. A draft copy is available here. Since there's been no objection, I'll copy it into the live article in the next few days. Apau98 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Since there's been no discussion or objections, I completed the merge today. Apau98 (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The section on "Cost effectiveness" has not been unchanged for quite a while, however it has no supporting info and is not general enough when it mentions removing a ship from the water. I plan to write a more balanced section that is based on the reality that galvanic CP is widely deployed by real people and firms spending actual money, thereby determining it is cost effective for them. Any objections? Cafe Nervosa (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Realism of example?

For example, if a particular design shows that a pipeline 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) long needs 10 anodes, then approximately one anode per kilometere would be more effective than putting all 10 anodes at one end or in the centre.

Can so few anodes provide protection over such a long pipeline? I would think that currents and potentials would be far more localized than this.

89.217.15.89 (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Anode Rod

Perhaps a paragraph or two should be said about the implementation of anode rods in household hot water tanks. Also typically implemented of Aluminum/Zinc or Magnesium, they are designed to be sacrificial materials intended to reduce corrosion of the tank walls and extend the life of the tank. Plus their recommended maintenance/replacement. This may be the most familiar source of galvanic protection to most consumers. Images of rods (before and after) might also be good examples to show.

2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this even real?

I mean, I get the theory. Neat. But in practice. Has this ever been proven? All I can find is YouTube examples using nails and stuff in salt water and it appears the ones with sacrificial anodes got MORE rusty than the ones without. I am skeptical that this is even real and not just some woowoo that people believe works. Is there conclusive proof anywhere for this even working? 121.210.33.50 (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)