coatings useless or fantastic? what do you think??

Status
Not open for further replies.
thanks for coming in here. i know you prefaced this stating your familiarity with CQ. thus i want to clarify re: quoted, are you saying all current paint coatings form ionic vs. covalent bonds?

No coating will create a covalent bond with its substrate as you cannot produce a reaction between molecules of the clear and the coating (trying to react a suspension (reagent) with a stable molecular structure), so the only available chemical bond will be a weak electrostatic ionic bond, which combined with a mechanical interlocking bonding will produce adherence of the coating to it's substrate. The bonds are not stable over time and through exposure. Extrapolating my knowledge of chemistry and the limited non-propriety info I have I feel comfortable to tell clients that a properly installed and maintained coating will offer protection between 1 and 5 years, depending on the substrate ( glass, leather, SS paint, BC/CC paint system, plastic etc....) and exposure (mechanical and chemical) and thickness (micron thickness).

Are all coatings created equal?? NO!
 
Does anyone know when the next AG Chemistry Klass starts, WOW, do you guys know your stuff:cool:

Sent from my SPH-M930 using Tapatalk 2
 
Ceramic coatings seem to bond to paint in the same way paint bonds to other layers of paint: through a mix of absorption, chemical bonding, and mechanical interlocking.

Although coatings are exponentially thicker than traditional waxes or sealants, they are much thinner than a typical coat of paint. Because of the amounts of mechanical and chemical abuse our vehicles are subjected to it is no wonder that even a 1-3 micron "thick" paint coating will eventually degrade. I suspect automotive paint, applied to the same thickness, wouldn't last much longer than a modern ceramic coating on a daily driven vehicle.
 
I normally try and stay out of those discussions because there are too many variables associated with the longevity of coatings HOWEVER I would like to offer a tid bit of my chemistry background to the conversation.

Without making this conversion too technical (so please assume that in order to simplify my answer that some technicality have been ignored), I will offer that in the world of chemistry that 2 main basic bond exists:

1) Ionic (weak covalent, if you want to be technical)
2) Covalent

A chemical bond is defined as: a mutual attraction between two atoms resulting from a redistribution of their outer electrons.

An ionic bond is formed when one atom accepts or donates one or more of its valence electrons to another atom. That makes them electrostatically attracted together. This bond can be easily broken by any other atoms which have greater electronegativity. A covalent bond on the other hand is formed when atoms share valence electrons, which makes this bond much harder to break, and barring exposure to those elements of disruption, this bond is stable and considered "permanent".

The coating technology I know most about is the Quartz technology (since I am a Finest installer, and researched this technology more extensively). Although other coating technology exist (resin based etc..) the basic chemistry still applies although they may differ little in their chemical reactions. In the CQuartz technology, the Si (silicon) in suspension gets delivered to the paint (or other substrate) where its carrier agents (solution) is allowed to evaporate. As it evaporates the Si atoms will try and find chemical stability and will readily pair with O (oxygen) to create the stable covalent molecule of SiO2 (aka. silicon dioxide). This nano-size molecule bonds to other molecule to form a matrix, which fills all those little imperfections in the paint, creating a layer thickness of 1-3 micron in thickness. So far because we are talking about a covalent chemical bond I am in complete sync with all those companies that claim "permanency". Barring any mechanical or chemical disruption of the matrix, you will have a substance that will technically last FOREVER.

Here is a advertising picture I created to promote my business, and CQuartz Finest which may give you a visual of what I am talking about.

10499486_746096158786094_7066830013593314262_o.jpg


Where my brain do find objection in those marketing "shenanigans" of using the word PERMANENT stems in the fact that the bond that the matrix forms with the clear coat is an IONIC bond. There are no reagents in the clear coat (which is a stable matrix on its own) that will react to create a COVALENT bond with the nano-ceramic matrix. So please do yourself a favor and stop believing the hype. The only reason the CQuartz coating matrix stays in place is because you have a mechanical interlocking of the 2 structures, and a WEAK ionic bond (attraction) between the two matrix. AND this is REGARDLESS if you bring it in for regular checkups!!:nomore:

Clear coats are applied to base coat paint in the same way. They do NOT make a covalent bond and that is a reason why manufacturers don't put a "Permenant" label on their clear coats. Have you ever seen clear coat failure and complete delamination of the clear coat from the base coat?

delamination3.jpg


Now in a perfect environment with no harsh UV rays, acid rain, exposure to industrial spraying, solvents, or contact with non-pH neutral solutions etc... than EVERY coating is permanent. But have you ever tested the pH of road grime, which we all get on vehicles!?!? Do you even know what that road grime is?? Simple answer, in most part it is a mix of engine, transmission, gear oil and other petroleum based products, mixed with contaminated soil and run off water from Lord knows where containing Lord knows what. In other words, definitely not a pH neutral mixture, but more a mixture of earth products and petroleum SOLVENTS!

Next time you are riding in the sunset with your honey and see this darkened area of pavement in the center of your lane remember that it is this road grime mixture I've spoke of and be afraid, be very afraid!!!

o-ROAD-TRIP-facebook.jpg

No coating will create a covalent bond with its substrate as you cannot produce a reaction between molecules of the clear and the coating (trying to react a suspension (reagent) with a stable molecular structure), so the only available chemical bond will be a weak electrostatic ionic bond, which combined with a mechanical interlocking bonding will produce adherence of the coating to it's substrate. The bonds are not stable over time and through exposure. Extrapolating my knowledge of chemistry and the limited non-propriety info I have I feel comfortable to tell clients that a properly installed and maintained coating will offer protection between 1 and 5 years, depending on the substrate ( glass, leather, SS paint, BC/CC paint system, plastic etc....) and exposure (mechanical and chemical) and thickness (micron thickness).

Are all coatings created equal?? NO!

Can I ask about your background - are you a PhD in chemistry, other subject or medic? **A quick google suggests the medical background** For reference, my background is a combination of molecular physics and biochemistry, where I have done my PhD and subsequent research.

I am a bit reluctant to leave alone some of your comments. It feels like you have over simplified some elements (bonding) and then dropped the crucial last step (with regards to covalent bond formation).
 
I'm addicted to sealants, I think I have some 15 different types, and I use it in my car. But my clients prefer SiO2 based coating; it is easier to charge them, since they pay for something that lasts lot longer than sealants.
I use a japanese coating that looks like CQuartz, but it is more cost effective. It has a candy look, very smooth, but application is troublesome.
When the client is not willing to pay the extra $ I apply sealant. Menzerna PL, Nanolex, Opti-Seal, Sonus and DP are my usual choices.
I also have the expensive Black Label Coating, but the clean, classy look is not a hit with my customers. They think you applied sealant.
What my clients mostly like, regarding coatings, is the candy glassy look.
I think ceramic coatings looks like a sealant for the average customer, so I won't be buying it again.
Since customers are paying a lot of money and leaving the car with you for two or more days, they want the durability and the more effective scratch resistant quality of a SiO2 based coating system.
 
Can I ask about your background - are you a PhD in chemistry, other subject or medic? **A quick google suggests the medical background** For reference, my background is a combination of molecular physics and biochemistry, where I have done my PhD and subsequent research.

I am a bit reluctant to leave alone some of your comments. It feels like you have over simplified some elements (bonding) and then dropped the crucial last step (with regards to covalent bond formation).

I did oversimplify on purpose (and did explain it in my original post) for a couple of reason. I'm sure there are a few steps that could be expanded on regarding the matrix of quartz coating and urethane clear coats.... and the "bonding", but here is in a nutshell why I chose to oversimply (a lot)

#1 The level of information I already shared (even as crudely oversimplified as it is) goes above the basic knowledge of the AGO community, and to add more depth and other theories about the "proprietary carriers/solution/suspension" and bonding reagents (which I have no present knowledge of) would just detract from the subject matter of my original reply regarding the term "Permanent". As I pointed out in my original post even an ionic bond is a covalent bond, so don't worry I do understand my chemistry, and also understand the fact that a sharing of covalent electron DOES occur even in stable matrices. We can surely get lost in discussing the theories, but I would love to hear your position on the word "Permanent" as it pertains to coating in an "exposed" daily driver.

As I said, my position is that ALL coating are permanent in a sterile, protected environment (without heat/cold metal contraction, UV irradiation, exposure to the chemical and mechanical elements associated with a daily driver, etc...), but that the word "permanent" in the marketing of coatings to be installed in a "normal" environment is a gross exaggeration and falls under marketing "shenanigans" aimed at capitalizing on unsuspecting customers. Some companies are more unscrupulous than other and actually use this basis (not the actual measurable performance of their coatings) to put down other companies.

#2 There is a LOT about the chemical composition of the suspension (nano-tech solids) and carriers (liquid) that I am not privied to. Maybe you are and it would be great if you could shed light on it.

You and I can definitely discuss and speculate as to the exact chemistry via PM, but be my guess to reply openly if you feel an urge to correct an overt mistake. I am fallible after all and do use applied science rather than basic science daily, so I may be a little rusty, but I do think however that you may find yourself in the same boat as me as far as "speculating" on the exact chemistry associated with coatings, since neither you and I know the exact process.

As to your question about my background, my undergrad is in biochemistry and professional degree(s) are in Physical Therapy, same with my professional certifications. As you said, a quick Google Search can find me (since I am the only Claude Tremblay in the state of Louisiana). From the look of your pedigree it does seem that you could bring a LOT more to the argument of "Permanency", so looking forward to reading your posts on the subject.

Since English is my second language, and I am definitely not a English scholar I will offer a definition we can spin from in the discussion of "Permanency".

Per·ma·nent ˈpərmənənt Adjective. Lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.(emphasis added)
 
Claude tremblay.. sounds famous. An actor or painter something along those lines. .. I was in the navy with a guy from Louisiana. There's some cool names down there
 
How does someone find your name from dr pain anyway

sig says his name ; )

was just down at an LSU game in Baton Rouge. you are right about the names. and some funky accents too if you get near the cajuns. and speaking of names, there are like three other people in the US with my exact name and one is in LA.
 
Since what evoked my response was Allen's post about 9H, let me take their own descriptor to further reinforce my point about "permanent". How can you claim permanence and have a marketing descriptor such as "RESISTANT"?? (This is a quote from 9H)
-Scratch Resistance (Above 9H)
-Weather & UV Resistance
-UV & Temperature resistant
-Thermal Resistance (up to 750°C)
-9H can only be removed by abrasion​

Doesn't the above indicate that it is susceptible to mechanical, and thermal disruption? Therefore not Permanent?

Just to stay with 9H subject for a second, even their independent testing by SGS is misleading. The standardized scale of hardness is called the Mohs scale of mineral hardness (developed by Friedrick Mohs). The testing done by SGS (the independent firm that did the testing for 9H) does NOT reference a scratch test using standardized measures, but uses a testing process they invented using pencils of varied degrees of hardness from 6B to 9H (remember those No2 pencils we had to buy in school)

peng.jpg


A true "scratch test" will use varied testing minerals to compare their hardness (from talc to corundum) where the H is actually a measure comparative to known standards (10H being diamond).
Did anyone ever figure that 9H references a lead pencil, rather than the true scale of mineral hardness?? Don't tell me this is not misleading, especially when you have other companies that actually had independent scientific studies using standardized an accepted scales.

Quick Edit: This is a search I did to see how a lead pencil would stack up on the MOHS scale: On the Mohs scale, graphite (a principal constituent of pencil "lead") has a hardness of 1.5; a fingernail, 2.2–2.5; a copper penny, 3.2–3.5; a pocketknife 5.1; a knife blade, 5.5; window glass plate, 5.5; and a steel nail, 5.5. A streak plate (unglazed porcelain) has a hardness of 7.0. (This is not my research and is not verified but seems about right, from what I know)

mohs%20en.jpg


@PiPuk, I did re-read through the thread and read your comment specifically and I do agree with you in the conspiracy that some of those so called coating may not be anything more than high tech sealants (especially when their durability is less than 1 year and their application so easy).
 
How does someone find your name from dr pain anyway

HAHA, I am french Canadian ex-pat living in Louisiana. After graduation I was recruited to come work in the US and chose Louisiana for its french heritage. Funk accents and interesting names (and cultural quirks) oh yea!! I've been living in South Louisiana for close to 20 years and I am still amazed by some of the "discoveries" I make.

As for the forum handle, I was given the name Dr. Pain by a patient that said that P.T. after my name stands for Pain and Torture. I've have the nickname for 18 years and use it in all the forums I participate in, not to mention it is my handle on eBay as well LOL!
 
Ha ha, pencil scale, good one. Wait...that's not a joke, that's their marketing mumbo jumbo? Well, apparently they didn't invent it: The Pencil Hardness Test . And it may be some sort of valid comparison test, but clearly bogus if they are suggesting it has a Mohs hardness of 9H...but I can't find anywhere where they actually suggest that.
 
I'm addicted to sealants, I think I have some 15 different types, and I use it in my car. But my clients prefer SiO2 based coating; it is easier to charge them, since they pay for something that lasts lot longer than sealants.
I use a japanese coating that looks like CQuartz, but it is more cost effective. It has a candy look, very smooth, but application is troublesome.
When the client is not willing to pay the extra $ I apply sealant. Menzerna PL, Nanolex, Opti-Seal, Sonus and DP are my usual choices.
I also have the expensive Black Label Coating, but the clean, classy look is not a hit with my customers. They think you applied sealant.
What my clients mostly like, regarding coatings, is the candy glassy look.
I think ceramic coatings looks like a sealant for the average customer, so I won't be buying it again.
Since customers are paying a lot of money and leaving the car with you for two or more days, they want the durability and the more effective scratch resistant quality of a SiO2 based coating system.

What Japanese coating are you using? Just curious.
 
Ha ha, pencil scale, good one. Wait...that's not a joke, that's their marketing mumbo jumbo? Well, apparently they didn't invent it: The Pencil Hardness Test . And it may be some sort of valid comparison test, but clearly bogus if they are suggesting it has a Mohs hardness of 9H...but I can't find anywhere where they actually suggest that.

I believe the actual test performed by SGS was their own invention as I could not find any other references of this test for any other substrate, nor could I find true MOHs hardness testing on the 6B to 9H pencils. The process does seem scientific enough (with the little gadget they put together to keep the load on the pencil tip) but I would give them a hard time if I was presented me with this "Independent Study", unless it had enough data point to pass statistical standards of Double Control Testing. But then again I would want a measure that could pass the scrutiny of the scientific community also, and in terms of hardness scale the MOHS scale IS the standard. Here is a link to the study by SGS on behalf of 9H
http://ceramic-pro.de/wp-content/up...S-HV905689X.Hardness-by-Pencil-Test-1000g.pdf

As for your other question, that is the beauty of deception in MARKETING!! They did not explicitly state their "H" was on the Mohs Scale but did not divulge that it was pencil hardness either. Someone looking to compare the 2H (MOHS) claim by CQuartz and a 9H by Ceramic Pro would never think that 9H referred to pencil graphite, especially when you are researching scratch resistance and coating hardness. They capitalize on the fact that most detailers (or car owner) don't know Adam from Eve, but they know that they will Google "scratch resistance scale" in comparing (if they don't buy 100% in their marketing literature about how good their product is), and the first result is the MOHS scale!!

Now if we could get ALL manufacturer to adopt the same independent testing, and that independent testing could pass scientific scrutiny, and that all results were presented in the same format.... well heck, that is NEVER going to happen!
 
I believe the actual test performed by SGS was their own invention as I could not find any other references of this test for any other substrate, nor could I find true MOHs hardness testing on the 6B to 9H pencils. The process does seem scientific enough (with the little gadget they put together to keep the load on the pencil tip) but I would give them a hard time if I was presented me with this "Independent Study", unless it had enough data point to pass statistical standards of Double Control Testing. But then again I would want a measure that could pass the scrutiny of the scientific community also, and in terms of hardness scale the MOHS scale IS the standard. Here is a link to the study by SGS on behalf of 9H
http://ceramic-pro.de/wp-content/up...S-HV905689X.Hardness-by-Pencil-Test-1000g.pdf

As for your other question, that is the beauty of deception in MARKETING!! They did not explicitly state their "H" was on the Mohs Scale but did not divulge that it was pencil hardness either. Someone looking to compare the 2H (MOHS) claim by CQuartz and a 9H by Ceramic Pro would never think that 9H referred to pencil graphite, especially when you are researching scratch resistance and coating hardness. They capitalize on the fact that most detailers (or car owner) don't know Adam from Eve, but they know that they will Google "scratch resistance scale" in comparing (if they don't buy 100% in their marketing literature about how good their product is), and the first result is the MOHS scale!!

Now if we could get ALL manufacturer to adopt the same independent testing, and that independent testing could pass scientific scrutiny, and that all results were presented in the same format.... well heck, that is NEVER going to happen!

all manufacturers should, i agree. but i think a lot of manufacturers (actual chemists in the lab making stuff) are indeed completing coating industry-standard testing during development to formulate how they will approach the market. it's just that sometimes it's hard to discern who is making what, who is sourcing what and where marketing banter goes awry if it even does for some products. and when i say coating industry-standard, i mean salt spray test and various exposure tests, ISO and ASTM tests, etc.
 
What Japanese coating are you using? Just curious.

Kisho Si-701. And a Brazilian brand called VX45, which is surprisingly good, made with Japanese substrate. But you have to level it up with a proprietary product.
I humbly think that Silica coating is the way to go, I liked so much the results I've been obtaining that yesterday I coated my own car. I will be doing some tests, overcoating the Silica based coating with ceramic coating. I have Duragloss Enviroshield and Pinnacle Black Label for ceramic coating. And on top of that, maybe a Nanolex sealant, after some 15 days.
I have an old car which I bought it used, with a very thin layer of clearcoat, the previous owner polished it way too much, so I do all tests there.
There is almost none info regarding overcoating, most of opinions thinking it is useless, so I will have to figure it out by myself.
 
I did oversimplify on purpose (and did explain it in my original post) for a couple of reason. I'm sure there are a few steps that could be expanded on regarding the matrix of quartz coating and urethane clear coats.... and the "bonding", but here is in a nutshell why I chose to oversimply (a lot)

#1 The level of information I already shared (even as crudely oversimplified as it is) goes above the basic knowledge of the AGO community, and to add more depth and other theories about the "proprietary carriers/solution/suspension" and bonding reagents (which I have no present knowledge of) would just detract from the subject matter of my original reply regarding the term "Permanent". As I pointed out in my original post even an ionic bond is a covalent bond, so don't worry I do understand my chemistry, and also understand the fact that a sharing of covalent electron DOES occur even in stable matrices. We can surely get lost in discussing the theories, but I would love to hear your position on the word "Permanent" as it pertains to coating in an "exposed" daily driver.

As I said, my position is that ALL coating are permanent in a sterile, protected environment (without heat/cold metal contraction, UV irradiation, exposure to the chemical and mechanical elements associated with a daily driver, etc...), but that the word "permanent" in the marketing of coatings to be installed in a "normal" environment is a gross exaggeration and falls under marketing "shenanigans" aimed at capitalizing on unsuspecting customers. Some companies are more unscrupulous than other and actually use this basis (not the actual measurable performance of their coatings) to put down other companies.

#2 There is a LOT about the chemical composition of the suspension (nano-tech solids) and carriers (liquid) that I am not privied to. Maybe you are and it would be great if you could shed light on it.

You and I can definitely discuss and speculate as to the exact chemistry via PM, but be my guess to reply openly if you feel an urge to correct an overt mistake. I am fallible after all and do use applied science rather than basic science daily, so I may be a little rusty, but I do think however that you may find yourself in the same boat as me as far as "speculating" on the exact chemistry associated with coatings, since neither you and I know the exact process.

As to your question about my background, my undergrad is in biochemistry and professional degree(s) are in Physical Therapy, same with my professional certifications. As you said, a quick Google Search can find me (since I am the only Claude Tremblay in the state of Louisiana). From the look of your pedigree it does seem that you could bring a LOT more to the argument of "Permanency", so looking forward to reading your posts on the subject.

Since English is my second language, and I am definitely not a English scholar I will offer a definition we can spin from in the discussion of "Permanency".

Per·ma·nent ˈpərmənənt Adjective. Lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.(emphasis added)

There is quite a bit of wrong information and misinformation here about chemistry and coating science which can be due to lack of knowledge or supporting some product/brand! First of all it takes 5 to 10 times more energy to break an ionic bond than a covalent bond but an ionic bond easily dissolves in water. So it is completely wrong to say an ionic bond is a weak bond but one should rather say that ionic bonds are easily hydrolyzed.



Second, as far as covalent bonds, they are not all created equal. So to say all covalent bonds are the same is totally absurd. Some covalent bonds hydrolyze and break in presence of acids and bases such as Si-O bonds (silica, nano-coatings, siloxanes, etc.). Therefore, if nano-coatings/nano-sealants or other sealants are exposed to alkaline degreasers or acid pre-soaks such as those used in a touchless wash, they will dissolve over a short period of time. Without using a booster product, these type products last 1-2 years if they are not exposed to acids or caustics and 1-2 months if they go through weekly touchless car washes or cleaned with alkaline degresers.



Other covalent bonds such as N-C-O bonds in urethane clearcoats and Si-C bonds such as those in Optimum Coatings do not hydrolyze or break in the presence of acids or caustics and can go through hundreds or touchless car washes without any change in film thickness or performance. If these covalent bonds dissolved over time, then all car manufacturers would tell their customers to avoid car washes altogether! However, you can remove factory Clearcoats or Optimum Clearcoats by abrading and paint removers which are specifically designed for that purpose.



Of course, at the end of the day all the theory should be put to actual testing for proof. While all the nano-coating products you have mentioned do not show durability of over 2 years even without extreme testing, Opti-Coat has been tested over and over in the past 7 years by independent users throughout the world and the results have always been the same showing no change in performance with normal washing or even with detergents or alkaline and acid cleaners used in touchless car washes. Here is one of the reviews with extensive details from a couple of years ago:


http://www.autogeekonline.net/forum...um-opti-coating-durability-test-review-5.html


Last but not least, you claim that no coating or resin can bond with existing Cleacoat which is only true with nano-coatings and should not be generalized due to the lack of knowledge. I can list a dozen different resins that we make which can readily react with Urethane linkages or acrylics but that would be proprietary information that we do not want to share.
 
I don't believe Dr. G. What does he know, anyway?

Has he ever even read the label on a bottle of CQuartz?

Besides, I heard that nano sealants will clear up my acne, and who wants something that will last a long time? I heard on TV if something lasts longer than 4 hours, you should call a doctor...wait...maybe they meant if you want a coating that lasts longer than 4 hours, call Dr. G!

All kidding aside, thanks Dr. G for adding some real chemist knowledge to this thread. It's kind of funny how a little knowledge in one area and the internet can sometimes lull us into a false sense of expertise, until a real expert such as yourself chimes in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top