Why do people use 5.5" pads?

TroyScherer said:
Oh....

I read it just didn't see the point in doing all the math and posting pointless info to confuse people.



I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night does that count?!?!? All is good. :)
Click to expand...

If that's the case, shoot your reply to BG. That's where all the math originated. Again, show me the formula. Showed you mine.:buffing:
 
tlinder1 said:
If that's the case, shoot your reply to BG. That's where all the math originated. Again, show me the formula. Showed you mine.:buffing:
Click to expand...


This has gone beyond constructive and is now pointless. You may want to re-read this thread looking at it from some else's point of view to see how you are coming across. It is not very positive. But at this point we are still good. So have a good day.



End Conversation
 
chris.ganucheau said:
Well we can all tell by you low post count an hostility when posting that your immature and always trying to one up everyone else. You can probably just be quiet because I can garuantee you that no one here is going to take your word over bobbyg's. Furthermore why would you want to know the area of the top and sides of the pad when buffing? What bobby said had revalence to the post, he said in essence the bigger the face of the pad the more friction it will have making it harder on the da to oscillate an spin. But thanks for your useless post. :xyxthumbs:
Click to expand...

Forums are useful for providing reliable information. If information posted is inaccurate or incorrect, who is it going to help? Get upset with me for pointing that out?? If you see inaccurate info and ignore it, are you actually helping??

And you're calling me immature.. Ha Ha. Furthermore, if you think you can judge a person based on post count, you 'ain't' got a clue. MANY on this forum are gulity of posting just for the sake of saying they reached a certain number of posts. I've read this forum daily for YEARS but choose to limit my posts.

Just so you'll know, in order to determine the "surface area" of a buffing pad, you HAVE to include the top/bottom/side measurements to get the "surface area". Otherwise it's NOT the surface area. I said BG's info on the surface area is wrong, based on the actual formula used to determine that. Don't get hostile with me because you don't know and still choose to comment...

Flash, seriously, I'm done now for sure..
 
I tend to only pay attention to members with low post counts (except for BobbyG). My feelings are when they do post, it must be about something they are sure they are right about
 
Oh yea,

Everyone should always pay attention to what I'm saying because I know everything
 
Flash Gordon said:
Did someone forget to read the part where I said to calm down and take a deep breath?

-Not me, Flash!!
-I'm always: "cool as a cucumber"!! :cool:
-And I honestly try to never get "technical"!! :D
Click to expand...

But...
Is it possible that some folks calculations/statements in their postings about
foam-pads (in this instance) may be a 'little off the mark'?!?!

-Are foam pads solid? NO! I say (don't they have thousands of air pockets or pores)

-Are there 'sized-foam walls' around these air pockets/pores? Yes! I say.

-Can these walls be strengthened---pads becoming firmer with more surface area...
...as in: 'a-priming-technique'? Yes! I say.

-Is there a break-in-period for pads? Yes! I say.

-Are pads face-surfaces flat? NO!! I say (Asperity comes to my thought-processes)

What is Surface-area of pads, as it refers to the buffing-processes?
a.) Is this being calculated before any chemicals/abrasives have been applied?
b.) After a pad has been either primed or after a given amount of time-lapse usage?
c.) What about the generation of heat when pads are involved in buffing?
d.) When/while being compressed (exertion of pressure/force)?
e.) Actual profile of surface being buffed upon?
f.) Is the buffing/abrading process (including pads' surface- area) dynamic?






-If I may be so bold to suggest (and IMHO)...
Net Surface Area may be a more definitive answer.
It is to me, anyway.

-I can only further suggest that:

"The Kevin Brown Method" be either visited/revisited.


:)

Bob
 
tlinder1 said:
I very well understand this is not a math problem and again, he is 'not' correct because if you are referring to surface area, its just that, the 'Entire' area based on the formula to calculate the surface area.

We are not referring to surface area, we are referring to the part of the pad that touches the paint. Yes, he used the term "surface area" but you are looking miles deep into the words. He means contact area.

I understand if you don't get it. Doesn't really surprise me seeing guys often go into technical detail to only reveal they don't really know what they're talking about. Happens quite often.

Oh, I get it and all the math. I'm not sure you get that this is an automotive forum though. So what if he said surface area, read between the lines, and understand he meant the contact area or face of the pad. NOT the total surface area of a pad. Clearly, you have taken your basic algebra class in school. Maybe it's time to get the English books out for once ;)

If you say he's right, forward me the formula used to get his suggested surface areas if you don't mind. Otherwise, only stating your opinion, and math can surely dismiss that with no problem. Lateral surface area' may actually be what he was meaning to provide info on and not just as surface area if you want to get so technical, which is what I was wondering why would that even be necessary.

Call it whatever you want. It's the face of the pad that touches the paint. That is all any detailer will care about, no one cares about the total surface area.

Also as I said, no one researches the surface area of a pad along with the power of the polisher to determine if that combo will perform. Sometimes unecessary info only complicates matters.

I really like your last line. Let me show you an example of an unnecessary post that only complicates matters: post 8
Click to expand...

Please, if you want to be super technical about something as trivial as surface area, go to a math forum. If you want to learn about how to detail a car and make it shiny, feel free to stick around. :dblthumb2:
 
tlinder1 said:
Apparently you didn't read my post. I never said you had to include volume of a pad. It was a suggestion (sarcasm) based on being so technical with surface area. I've never heard of anyone wanting to know the surface area of a pad to determine if it was suitable for their needs or if a polisher would produce desirable results using surface area info. Do yourself a favor and research surface area to really understand what is means. But who am I...... Maybe a math major????
Click to expand...


Actually knowing the information Bobby posted is very useful. Kevin Brown goes into a little more detail as to why below.


Buffing Pads (shop by diameter)
 
tlinder1 said:
Forums are useful for providing reliable information. If information posted is inaccurate or incorrect, who is it going to help? Get upset with me for pointing that out?? If you see inaccurate info and ignore it, are you actually helping??

And you're calling me immature.. Ha Ha. Furthermore, if you think you can judge a person based on post count, you 'ain't' got a clue. MANY on this forum are gulity of posting just for the sake of saying they reached a certain number of posts. I've read this forum daily for YEARS but choose to limit my posts.

Just so you'll know, in order to determine the "surface area" of a buffing pad, you HAVE to include the top/bottom/side measurements to get the "surface area". Otherwise it's NOT the surface area. I said BG's info on the surface area is wrong, based on the actual formula used to determine that. Don't get hostile with me because you don't know and still choose to comment...

Flash, seriously, I'm done now for sure..
Click to expand...

Okay fine, how about the surface area of the pad that is in contact with the material being polished. That better?

Yes you are correct about calculating the total surface area of a pad. But you didn't offer any insight as to how that may or may not be relevant to the discussion at hand.

Seems you were more concerned about showing us how educated you are. It might have been a better approach to shed a little light on the subject. That would have shown us how smart you are.:props:
 
This got way more technical than it needs to be.


What BobbyG posted is very useful for the general discussion of pad sizes and their effects, and it has been posted numerous times.

I could care less about what the TOTAL surface area of the pad is. All I care about is the part of the pad that is contact with the paint. It doesn't take a genius to realize that a 6.5" pad will have more surface area on the face of the pad than a 5.5" pad. Thus meaning in general that a 5.5" pad will be easier for the machine to spin because it has less area in contact with the paint.


Oh, I like 5.5" pads because they are easier to work with for me and can fit better on crowded body panels.:xyxthumbs:
 
Flash Gordon said:
Who is this Kevin Brown guy everyone speaks of?
Click to expand...

LOL!

He has several aliases.... KB, BuffyDaddy, WAXMAN, Czar of Car, Poobah of Polish, The Almighty One, or simply Kevin Brown :D

old002.jpg
 
I use the 5.5 pads with my makita 9227 and absolutely love the results. I wont even bother with any bigger

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2
 
I use a 5.5 pad to remove oxidation on my trailer and it makes my DA have the balls to do it.


Sent from my iPhone using AG Online
 
tlinder1 said:
If that's the case, shoot your reply to BG. That's where all the math originated. Again, show me the formula. Showed you mine.:buffing:
Click to expand...


My intention was to simply illustrate without complications or arrogance the difference between one size pad vs. another, in this case a standard 5 1/2", 6 1/2" and 7" diameter pads.

Most here understand that the foam pads they rely on for compounding and polishing are round or circular in shape, hence the reason I chose to keep things simple.

That said, I decided to use a simple formula to determine the area of a circle to illustrate my point.

The area of a circle is simply stated as: pi × r2 with pi = 3.141592653589793. For this example I decided to again simplify things and used pi = 3.14

To calculate the simple area of a 5 1/2", 6 1/2" and 7" circle the following formula can be used....or at least the way I remember it but maybe things have changed.


Area = pi × r2 = 3.14 × 2.752 = 3.14 × 7.562 = 23.75 in²

Area = pi × r2 = 3.14 × 3.252 = 3.14 × 10.562 = 33.18 in²

Area = pi × r2 = 3.14 × 3.502 = 3.14 × 12.25 = 38.48 in²


Allow me to restate my illustration for our readers


  • Area - 5 1/2" circle = 23.75 in²
  • Area - 6 1/2" circle = 33.18 in²
  • Area - 7" circle = 38.48 in²

What I attempted to illustrate I did so in simple terms using products commonly found in every detailing arsenal. I did to in order to convey a clear understanding of how using a smaller or larger polishing pad can affect a polishers performance.

I have posed this information more times than I care to remember and you're the first person to find fault and need to correct it, interesting.

Fault-finding and criticizing, no matter what your intentions, tend to drive wedges between us and other people. A person who looks in order to find fault in everything is a person to be avoided, when all is said and done, and who among us wants other people to avoid us whenever they can?

Now, back to detailing boys and girls.....:coolgleam:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top