Route246
New member
- Mar 4, 2017
- 1,037
- 0
I ran across an interesting thread in a UK detailing board. If you search "Thickness of wax layers?" you can find the thread. I'm not going to post the URL here.
In summary, I think it does indicate that wax "build up" and "layering" is not necessarily cumulative and that subsequent layers of wax to not appreciably add to the thickness of the physical layer of protection. This may debunk some theories about using shampoo and rinseless products that have wax added to them.
The tests were performed on silicon wafers and high-precision measurement equipment was used. Here are some highlights:
The first tests reported below used Collinite no 915 applied to clean 6 inch diameter silicon wafers using a damp microfibre cloth (as manufacturer's recommendations). Four silicon wafers were used, with slight variations on the waxing technique as given below.
Wafer 1. Wax was applied thinly with damp cloth, left for 5 minutes to haze over and then buffed off with clean microfibre cloth. No great effort was applied.
Measured Thickness = 22.7 nm (in centre of wafer)
Wafer 2. Wax was applied thickly with damp cloth, left for 15 minutes to haze over and then buffed off with clean microfibre cloth. This layer required a fair degree of effort to remove compared to wafer 1.
Measured Thickness = 20.6 nm (in centre of wafer)
Wafer 3. Wax was applied thinly with damp cloth, left for 15 minutes to haze over and then buffed off with clean microfibre cloth. No great effort was necessary.
Measured Thickness = 15.9 nm (in centre of wafer)
Wafer 4. Wax was applied thinly with damp cloth and buffing with clean microfibre started immediately.
= Measured Thickness = 16.9 nm (in centre of wafer).
Results: Adding a second layer
The four wafers measured yesterday had another coat of Collinite no 915 applied using a damp microfibre cloth (pretty nearly 24 hours after first coat)
The new layer was buffed off wafer 1 after about 5 minutes.
I could see that wafer 1 was obviously not completely dry when buffed, so I gave the other wafers another 5 minutes to fully dry, which may explain the results below.
The rig used ensures that the wafers are remeasured in the same position as for the first layer.
Wafer 1:
Thickness after first application: 22.7 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 18.8 nm
Difference:- - 3.9 nm
Wafer 2:
Thickness after first application: 20.6 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 23.8 nm
Difference:- +2.2 nm
Wafer 3:
Thickness after first application: 15.9 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 25.0 nm
Difference:- +9.1 nm
Wafer 4:
Thickness after first application: 16.9 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 27.8 nm
Difference:- +10.9 nm
Now I applied a third layer with the damp microfibre, waited 10 minutes and buffed with a clean, dry microfibre cloth.
To make it easier to compare, I show the results above once more, along with the new thicknesses.
Wafer 1:
Thickness after first application: 22.7 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 18.8 nm
Remeasured 24 hours later: thickness = 15.3 nm
Thickness after 3rd application: 22.1 nm
Wafer 2:
Thickness after first application: 20.6 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 23.8 nm
Remeasured 24 hours later: thickness = 22.5 nm
Thickness after 3rd application: 17.0 nm
Wafer 3:
Thickness after first application: 15.9 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 25.0 nm
Remeasured 24 hours later: thickness = 24.9 nm
Thickness after 3rd application: 20.1 nm
Wafer 4:
Thickness after first application: 16.9 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 27.8 nm
Remeasured 24 hours later: thickness = 26.7 nm
Thickness after 3rd application: 21.5 nm
The results were a bit surprising; wafer1 gained, but the other three lost thickness!
I think you detailers will like the next bit!
Today I'm sure that I wasn't quite as constant with the buffing effort that I applied to the wafers as I had been on the previous two days
and it does seem (for this product anyway) that the final thickness depends crucially on how much pressure is applied in buffing.
To test this I tried re-buffing around the measurement area with clean parts of a dry microfibre cloth.
This time I tried to be consistent with the number of rubs and the pressure applied each time (as far as is possible manually)
The realy interesting thing is that each time I rubbed the area, I removed product - down to a fairly stable minimum of around 6 nm!
A typical result (I did this on several diffeent areas) was :-
Initial wax thickness = 20.1 nm
Light re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 14.9 nm
Light re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 7.3 nm
Light re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 5.8 nm
Light re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 5.8 nm
Light re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 5.6 nm. Looking at the clock, it's getting near to 6:30 pm so -
Heavy re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 5.6 nm!
OK, having seen this interesting result, I thought I may as well look at the effect of wiping over with a solvent laden cloth.Again this might be of interest to people here. Note that I am using pure, reagent grade, solvents, uncontaminated by impurities, oils etc.
In summary, I think it does indicate that wax "build up" and "layering" is not necessarily cumulative and that subsequent layers of wax to not appreciably add to the thickness of the physical layer of protection. This may debunk some theories about using shampoo and rinseless products that have wax added to them.
The tests were performed on silicon wafers and high-precision measurement equipment was used. Here are some highlights:
The first tests reported below used Collinite no 915 applied to clean 6 inch diameter silicon wafers using a damp microfibre cloth (as manufacturer's recommendations). Four silicon wafers were used, with slight variations on the waxing technique as given below.
Wafer 1. Wax was applied thinly with damp cloth, left for 5 minutes to haze over and then buffed off with clean microfibre cloth. No great effort was applied.
Measured Thickness = 22.7 nm (in centre of wafer)
Wafer 2. Wax was applied thickly with damp cloth, left for 15 minutes to haze over and then buffed off with clean microfibre cloth. This layer required a fair degree of effort to remove compared to wafer 1.
Measured Thickness = 20.6 nm (in centre of wafer)
Wafer 3. Wax was applied thinly with damp cloth, left for 15 minutes to haze over and then buffed off with clean microfibre cloth. No great effort was necessary.
Measured Thickness = 15.9 nm (in centre of wafer)
Wafer 4. Wax was applied thinly with damp cloth and buffing with clean microfibre started immediately.
= Measured Thickness = 16.9 nm (in centre of wafer).
Results: Adding a second layer
The four wafers measured yesterday had another coat of Collinite no 915 applied using a damp microfibre cloth (pretty nearly 24 hours after first coat)
The new layer was buffed off wafer 1 after about 5 minutes.
I could see that wafer 1 was obviously not completely dry when buffed, so I gave the other wafers another 5 minutes to fully dry, which may explain the results below.
The rig used ensures that the wafers are remeasured in the same position as for the first layer.
Wafer 1:
Thickness after first application: 22.7 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 18.8 nm
Difference:- - 3.9 nm
Wafer 2:
Thickness after first application: 20.6 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 23.8 nm
Difference:- +2.2 nm
Wafer 3:
Thickness after first application: 15.9 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 25.0 nm
Difference:- +9.1 nm
Wafer 4:
Thickness after first application: 16.9 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 27.8 nm
Difference:- +10.9 nm
Now I applied a third layer with the damp microfibre, waited 10 minutes and buffed with a clean, dry microfibre cloth.
To make it easier to compare, I show the results above once more, along with the new thicknesses.
Wafer 1:
Thickness after first application: 22.7 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 18.8 nm
Remeasured 24 hours later: thickness = 15.3 nm
Thickness after 3rd application: 22.1 nm
Wafer 2:
Thickness after first application: 20.6 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 23.8 nm
Remeasured 24 hours later: thickness = 22.5 nm
Thickness after 3rd application: 17.0 nm
Wafer 3:
Thickness after first application: 15.9 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 25.0 nm
Remeasured 24 hours later: thickness = 24.9 nm
Thickness after 3rd application: 20.1 nm
Wafer 4:
Thickness after first application: 16.9 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 27.8 nm
Remeasured 24 hours later: thickness = 26.7 nm
Thickness after 3rd application: 21.5 nm
The results were a bit surprising; wafer1 gained, but the other three lost thickness!
I think you detailers will like the next bit!
Today I'm sure that I wasn't quite as constant with the buffing effort that I applied to the wafers as I had been on the previous two days
and it does seem (for this product anyway) that the final thickness depends crucially on how much pressure is applied in buffing.
To test this I tried re-buffing around the measurement area with clean parts of a dry microfibre cloth.
This time I tried to be consistent with the number of rubs and the pressure applied each time (as far as is possible manually)
The realy interesting thing is that each time I rubbed the area, I removed product - down to a fairly stable minimum of around 6 nm!
A typical result (I did this on several diffeent areas) was :-
Initial wax thickness = 20.1 nm
Light re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 14.9 nm
Light re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 7.3 nm
Light re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 5.8 nm
Light re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 5.8 nm
Light re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 5.6 nm. Looking at the clock, it's getting near to 6:30 pm so -
Heavy re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 5.6 nm!
OK, having seen this interesting result, I thought I may as well look at the effect of wiping over with a solvent laden cloth.Again this might be of interest to people here. Note that I am using pure, reagent grade, solvents, uncontaminated by impurities, oils etc.
