I'm not so sure about CarPro Eraser...

[CEE DOG]

I've used Eraser since it's public release on dozen(s) of vehicles and have yet to have any issues or repeat customers where I polished the paint and hazing had re-appear.
But if your concerned with the <30% IPA,take some distilled water and mix half and half.Then you would have <15% IPA.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

[WRAPT C5Z06]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

What would be the mathematical equation if I wanted <10% IPA?

 

[CEE DOG]

Corey, Dr. G states that IPA can soften paint, which can lead to marring. So, it's recommended to stay in the 10-25% range. Obviously, 25% being on the *higher* end. However, Eraser uses 30-50% IPA(probably close to 40%), so are you still confident in using it?

I'm not sure why your saying 30-50? Avi stated that back when he appeared unwilling to share his exact ratio with people before the product was on the market. Since then the MSDS was released and stated 30%.

I am fine using Eraser. I used 30% IPA before and now with eraser I can use something that removes the bits that IPA didn't get thanks to the edition of a bit of laurel sulfate.

Dr. G stated that he would recommend the up to 25% (that Mike P. And others have written about). It was requested (by another forum) that I remove the sentence about mike P and others when I posted this quote on another forum so it isn't in the quote.

"But the notion that the solvents may be trapped in the paint forever or that the paint will soften permanently is absurd since clear coat paints start off with anywhere from 20-70% solvents and if this theory had any validity, then all paints should stay soft and/or some of the solvents should be trapped within the paint forever. "

 

[WRAPT C5Z06]

I'm not sure why your saying 30-50? Avi stated that back when he appeared unwilling to share his exact ratio with people before the product was on the market. Since then the MSDS was released and stated 30%.

I am fine using Eraser. I used 30% IPA before and now with eraser I can use something that removes the bits that IPA didn't get thanks to the edition of a bit of laurel sulfate.

Dr. G stated that he would recommend the up to 25% (that Mike P. And others have written about). It was requested (by another forum) that I remove the sentence about mike P and others when I posted this quote on another forum so it isn't in the quote.

"But the notion that the solvents may be trapped in the paint forever or that the paint will soften permanently is absurd since clear coat paints start off with anywhere from 20-70% solvents and if this theory had any validity, then all paints should stay soft and/or some of the solvents should be trapped within the paint forever. "

The MSDS states < 30%. So, that would mean more than 30%. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[FUNX650]

Nice bit of research there Bob, this is the best part...
:xyxthumbs:

Nice Bob!! Some great reasoning to use a paint cleaner like I do on my Sky and many other cases instead of any harsh solvents.

Thanks!

I'm a firm believer in: What ever measures it may take to preserve, what has on most occasions been deemed: "The quite-thin...Yet oh so precious...Clear-coat-paint-film".



Bob

 

[dougaross]

The MSDS states < 30%. So, that would mean more than 30%. Correct me if I'm wrong.

IMO. this means LESS than 30% (x<30% means x is less than 30%)

 

[Twister]

IMO. this means LESS than 30% (x<30% means x is less than 30%)

I agree

 

[WRAPT C5Z06]

IMO. this means LESS than 30% (x<30% means x is less than 30%)

:doh: I'm an idiot!!!

 

[2old2change]

Mark is correct about the swelling . After using my Car Pro Eraser the doors swelled up to where they wouldn't open and the car became stuck between two other parked cars. It was worse then being on paint steroids.
Sorry Mark I couldn't resist doing this. I just woke up this morning in a strange mood and I knew you could take a ribbing.:joking:

 

[Bunky]

Al, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say? Are you saying that using Griot's PWC before waxing had a negative affect on durability of waxes?

No. I was doing a test to see how well it removed a surface that was waxed as a test of cleaning power.

I do plan to do a test at some point on a side by side comparison of a surface prepped pre-wax and one prepped by IPA. In less exact use, I have not seen any difference.

 

[Bunky]

Mark is correct about the swelling . After using my Car Pro Eraser the doors swelled up to where they wouldn't open and the car became stuck between two other parked cars. It was worse then being on paint steroids.
Sorry Mark I couldn't resist doing this. I just woke up this morning in a strange mood and I knew you could take a ribbing.:joking:

Downing a six pack of consumable alcohol can cause swelling .

 

[2old2change]

Downing a six pack of consumable alcohol can cause swelling .

Yep ! Right over the right eye.

 

[FUNX650]

I used 30% IPA before and now with eraser I can use something that removes the bits that IPA didn't get thanks to the edition of a bit of laurel sulfate.

But if your concerned with the <30% IPA,take some distilled water and mix half and half.Then you would have <15% IPA.

Just: "Playing the Devil's Advocate":

What happens to the overall % of laurel sulfate, and its role in removing unwanted "fillers" from the intended vehicles' surfaces, when the totality of the Erasure product is diluted by 50%?

(I'm presuming it's sodium laurel sulfate, which has many functions (dependent upon the Chemists' formulations) such as: Surfactant/detergent/foaming agent/dispersing agent, among others).

It just seems to me:

That if all of the ingredients in Erasure were not equally diluted, by the same % (and therefore, IMO, the same "effectiveness") then the Erasure product may take on characteristics of one ingredient over other ones...Rendering it into a different state/composition, rather than for its intended, and stated purpose.

I could be wrong in that premise, though.


But, afterall...When I dilute, for example...

A known % IPA/with some distilled or DI water,
I can rest assured of that diluted solvent product's 'ingredients' total dilution ratio. That can easily be interpreted, IMO, as to what "this solvent's effectiveness" then should be.


Note:
I'm not bashing Erasure or anyone who uses it...Just genuinely curious about opinions on: Further diluting this Erasure product.




Bob

 

[Hoytman]

As I understand each side, the goal seems to be to rid the paint surface of oils before applying an lsp, or coating.

Couldn't this same step be completed by simply using Dawn, or something similar (maybe an APC), in a foam cannon/gun then rinsing the car? Perhaps doing this twice to be certain (which may or may not be needed) to remove all oils. Time not being a factor.

 

[WRAPT C5Z06]

Just: "Playing the Devil's Advocate":

What happens to the overall % of laurel sulfate, and its role in removing unwanted "fillers" from the intended vehicles' surfaces, when the totality of the Erasure product is diluted by 50%?

(I'm presuming it's sodium laurel sulfate, which has many functions (dependent upon the Chemists' formulations) such as: Surfactant/detergent/foaming agent/dispersing agent, among others).

It just seems to me:

That if all of the ingredients in Erasure were not equally diluted, by the same % (and therefore, IMO, the same "effectiveness") then the Erasure product may take on characteristics of one ingredient over other ones...Rendering it into a different state/composition, rather than for its intended, and stated purpose.

I could be wrong in that premise, though.


But, afterall...When I dilute, for example...

A known % IPA/with some distilled or DI water,
I can rest assured of that diluted solvent product's 'ingredients' total dilution ratio. That can easily be interpreted, IMO, as to what "this solvent's effectiveness" then should be.


Note:
I'm not bashing Erasure or anyone who uses it...Just genuinely curious about opinions on: Further diluting this Erasure product.




Bob

I thought about the points that you made, Bob. rops: I agree, when diluting IPA, you know exactly what you're getting, not guessing if other ingredients are being compromised.

 

[Kevin Brown]

... Resprays from aftermarket sources, although they may be applied in multiple coats and be "thicker", will never be as "hard" in the same terms as OEM's because of the different temperatures during the respective heat-curing methods. "Softer" is often a term that is used for this difference....

... A huge question: How to determine softness/hardness of a OEM applied clear-coat...

Bob

I have been wondering for quite some time about paint "softness" or hardness", and what makes paint factually so. In other words, I don't know that it's actually density of mass that determines this parameter. I also don't know whether the paint "structure" itself (each individual molecule) is actually elastic or not.

Obviously, some sort of mechanical movement is occurring, as the paint is able to repeatedly move with the panel to which it is attached, even during polishing (when there must certainly be a great amount of heat and force placed upon it).

It seems sensible that if paint does indeed expand and collapse, and it factually swells to some degree when heat or solvent or force is placed upon it, the potential for swelling would be at its highest when all three are placed upon it.

This is why there have been instances where guys I know have been able to eliminate heavy defects, and finish the paint to a swirl-free finish, only to see remnants of the heavy defects return, while no hazing or micro-marring was visible.

If the surface had been worked using loads of motion and downward applied pressure, certainly then, it seems plausible that more solvent would be forced into the paint. It would therefore "swell" to a higher or taller degree, effectively hiding the heavier defects. Funny how those defects could be hidden, yet the paint uppermost surface could be finished mar-free.

Generally, I envision the paint structure as being expandable and collapsable, similar to how a sponge or scissor jack seems to operate. Still, in regards to the scissor jack, the intersections of the structure would have to have an ability to stretch or bend or flex (or not, if the paint was deemed as being "hard"). In terms of how a sponge works, capillary action does not explain how the sponge is able to expand and collapse; capillary action is a result of the action.

In regards to a claim that was made by a fellow paint polisher (in regards to an ability to eliminate a scratch via "pushing" paint to close the gap via pressure and heat using a buffing pad), I wrote:

... Unless a solvent causes the structure of automotive paint to become more rigid or inelastic (potentially more brittle); unless the solvent can remain within the structure, thus effectively supporting the paint structure (as polyester resin flows through and consequently support fiberglas matt or cloth), then it too, will evaporate eventually (just as water would, also a "solvent"). If the solvent can evaporate to the point that the paint structure once again repositions or rests to the same degree as it once did, then no harm nor benefit is achieved....

And:

... Any time the paint is affected in a permanent manner, there will always be a trade-off. Resiliency, rigidity, UV protective properties, etc. The fact that you are using heating and cooling to "reshape" the surface of the paint introduces possible consequences in regards to the base coat, the primer coat (no doubt as I have seen metallic particles shift positioning due to excess heating via rotary and a strong solvent-infused compound)...


Interesting stuff.. glad that Z-oh-6 Mark brought it up!

 

[Kevin Brown]

As C. Charles Hahn and CEE DOG mentioned in prior posts, there was a nice little thread about a similar subject on live 2 detail. In that, I wrote:

Dr. G said a lot in this thread, which most of you already know about (since Cee Dog started the thread and Bunky commented on it):
live2detail showthread.php?t=2306 IPA Use on Paint: Courtesy of Dr. G - 09-04-2011




As far as asking Dr. G... he would probably chime in.

Looked up miscible: "forming a homogeneous mixture when added together"

No trickery it seems, just a way of saying that waxes such as carnauba must be "liquified" or "modified" or "manipulated" in order to be distributed (made to be spreadable). At least, that's what I interpret it to mean.

I can only chime in on the rest from the standpoint of a guy that thinks things through using a mechanical perspective; I have no formal chemistry training. As for the IPA versus Prep-Sol versus Pre-Kleeno versus Prep-All versus wax & grease removers in general...

They do loosen or displace waxes, oils, sealants, etc. (and the towel actually removes it, or it floats away, eventually splattering on the floor), but all of these product could potentially swell paint, making the paint "soft" or more malleable (shapeable).

Therefore, any structured surface that has been affected by any product or force that causes it to temporarily change shape (via contraction or expansion due to heat, cold, solvents, or pressures), will react to polishing differently than it normally would.

Until the applied product has completely migrated from the structure via evaporation or forced removal (reheating and pressured out, or cooled and pressured out), any work we do to it (in our case we would be polishing the paint), it will surely react differently to the actual polishing, or look different once its original structure is restored.

What is interesting is that simply parking a car in the sun will cause expansion, just as it does to metals.

Saying this, I suppose that if you were a detailer living in a very cold climate, you would be wise to polish paint in the typical climate, since that is the temperature it will generally be viewed. Now I wonder what the result would be if paint was polished in a very cold climate, and then transported overnight to a very hot climate. Would the paint look the same?

Forget "look" the same... would its topography actually be the same? If a profilometer (think profile-o-meter) was used to read the paint in both climates, would readings of the micro-scratched surface actually be the same?!

That would tell the real story!

Thanks Rasky for asking for my input. :cheers:

From an older thread about this very subject on autopia.org named A new perspective on paint defect return (interesting)

post 58:



Yes, there's some pretty capable solvents out there. For lack of a better term 'softening' of paint is the only word that can convey what I've experienced. Thank you for calling me to the mat on my wording. Here's one reputable pre clean solvent and their description of what it does:

Product Information - 900 PRE-KLEANO

Application Properties / Characteristics
R-M 900 Pre-Kleano is a silicone, wax, grease, tar and road-oil dissolving solvent.

900 Pre-Kleano will;

- remove contamination from existing paint films,
- slightly penetrate existing paint for good adhesion of subsequent coats,
- clean sanded OEM finishes for repainting.



I just checked a few MSDS sheets online, and some of the products used in wax & grease remover, adhesion remover, solvent-based surface cleaner, (and the like) are: propane, mineral spirits, stoddart solvent, naptha, xylene,toluene, benzene.

Used properly, I doubt there's long term-effect. Used on a regular basis to 'strip' paint surface of LSP's (or as outlined in ABQDetailer's inquiry)? It could feasibly dry/alter elasticity of the paint surface, accomlishing exactly what we're trying to avoid- Paint degradation.

 

[FUNX650]

It seems sensible that if paint does indeed expand and collapse, and it factually swells to some degree when heat or solvent or force is placed upon it, the potential for swelling would be at its highest when all three are placed upon it.

:iagree:


Interesting stuff.. glad that Z-oh-6 Mark brought it up!

^^^^:iagree:^^^^ {Always very interesting...even controversial (My favorites, BTW ) at times. }

Thanks for taking the time to post Kevin. Your input in regards to Mark's concern is greatly appreciated....Excellent info! :dblthumb2:

Speaking of the highest potential for swelling...I'd like to add, if you don't mind:
I will propose, for discussion purposes, the heat component can be broken down into separate facets. (Something I'm sure you're already aware of, but I'd like to include)

-There's heat from chemical reactions that occur from/between solvents...(No matter if it's the solvents contained in polishes, waxes, "paint cleaners/strippers", and other detailing products) and paint surfaces.

-There's heat produced from the use of buffing equipment (machine/pads/pressure...and their interface with paint surfaces.

-Then there's solar heat, panel surface temperature, and ambient heat to consider. There's probably other heat generation sources that I've overlooked.


Most heat 'factors' are covered in the previously referenced solvent organizational charts. The scientists that expanded the Hildebrand Solubility Values Chart were wise enough to include parameters covering dispersion force, polar force, and hydrogen bonding force between solvents and polyurethane paint.

Too bad they didn't include parameters to include force (pressure?) as a component to produce heat, as it can vary between, in this case, individuals...
I'm glad you did, though!


The thought of Newton's Laws are now wafting through my mind, while I ponder how to deal with paint's reactions to: Various detailing actions.

I wonder: To whom, then, do I owe this pleasure? I can only speculate. (Hi Mark, )

Happy Holidays to you and yours, Kevin.




Bob

 

[Chris Thomas]

I'm not sure if this will help or cause more questions, but it's my understanding that heat by itself it does not cause issues. So for the paint to get hot under the Sun and soften or swell is perfectly fine. However, when people add shear during the buffing process, that is what causes microfracture of clearcoat or delamination of the clear from the colorcoat. Same thing with solvents; swelling and softening of solvents is not an issue but wiping the softened paint can cause marring. That is precisely why I don't use IPA wipedowns, but use a Power Clean wash or just ONR (when using our products) before inspecting.

 

[toycar18]

I'm not sure if this will help or cause more questions, but it's my understanding that heat by itself it does not cause issues. So for the paint to get hot under the Sun and soften or swell is perfectly fine. However, when people add shear during the buffing process, that is what causes microfracture of clearcoat or delamination of the clear from the colorcoat. Same thing with solvents; swelling and softening of solvents is not an issue but wiping the softened paint can cause marring. That is precisely why I don't use IPA wipedowns, but use a Power Clean wash or just ONR (when using our products) before inspecting.

Can you use ONR as Quick Detailer rather than the wash?