Abrasives - diminishing or otherwise

[PiPUK]

Hi guys,

this is undoubtedly an easy question and my query will be due to you detailing chaps making up your own terminology but what abrasives actually are you considering to be diminishing and which are non-diminishing? I don't mean which products, but specifically the minerals - for instance, alumina or kaolin or similar. I have had this discussion with several multinational mineral and abrasive suppliers and the diminishing/non-diminishing terminology is not known to them so I'm intrigued to know which minerals are which so I can find out the technical term the industry actually uses!

All the best

 

[Mike PhillipsMike Phillips is verified member.]

Good question...

I'll guess most people don't get this deep into it and rely on the manufacture to share "general" information about the type of abrasive technology used and that's about it.

The car wax industry is very tight lipped about ingredients, formulas, chemistry and technology. I've been asked many times questions like,

"What's in the bottle?"


And a long time ago my good friend and at one time Manager John Dillon helped to craft an answer that worked perfect at that time as it does today...

Don't focus on the ingredients in the bottle, (or can), but on the performance of the product
​

And in the car wax world that really does make sense.


I'm just as curious about what's in the bottle and how it works as the next guy and I think the case could be made I'm even more curious if you look at where my passion for this craft has taken me but I also know that car wax companies are very secretive about their products and at the end of the day what matters most are the results you achieve.

 

[swanicyouth]

Don't know. I once heard someone say SMAT is pretty much marketing hype. That all abrasives will diminish in size, maybe some more than others. The interesting thing is, Menzerna, who likely is on the edge of polish technology, still uses DAT primarily technology I believe.

The thing is, it doesnt matter though. DAT, SMAT, DAT/SMAT... - a good polish, is a good polish.

 

[psnt1ol]

The thing is, it doesnt matter though. DAT, SMAT, DAT/SMAT... - a good polish, is a good polish.

+1 :xyxthumbs:

 

[PiPUK]

Ah that is extremely interesting - the answer is clearly not as straightforward as I thought. That makes me a bit suspicious to be honest.

I do agree that it should not matter but it is quite clear that the average detailer puts a lot of stock in terms like DAT or SMAT so it would be nice to know if these actually relate to something in the real world.

 

[ScottB]

How many other products do we use and consume where we spent as much time looking to the ingredients ??? Perhaps we should change that and worry more about processed foods and less about the polish we use. Thats my goal for 2013 ...

 

[Mike PhillipsMike Phillips is verified member.]

Perhaps we should change that and worry more about processed foods and less about the polish we use. Thats my goal for 2013 ...

That's so true...

 

[PiPUK]

How many other products do we use and consume where we spent as much time looking to the ingredients ??? Perhaps we should change that and worry more about processed foods and less about the polish we use. Thats my goal for 2013 ...

I am coming from a different side than most, I am a chemical formulator so my job is knowing what is in products and hence the question. This is proving to be a particularly difficult area because of the total inconsistency between the terms you guys use and the terms which us formulators use.

 

[swanicyouth]

Perhaps we should change that and worry more about processed foods and less about the polish we use. Thats my goal for 2013 ...

Just don't mess with my Cheez-Itz

 

[AutowerxDetailing]

Speaking of ingredients... has everyone had their carnauba vitamins today?

 

[RMM]

Speaking of ingredients... has everyone had their carnauba vitamins today?
...

That's a quite common coating for pills and tablets.

 

[FUNX650]

I am coming from a different side than most, I am a chemical formulator so my job is knowing what is in products and hence the question. This is proving to be a particularly difficult area because of the total inconsistency between the terms you guys use and the terms which us formulators use.

It does seem to follow that each "industry", and even those that work therein,
has/have their own set of 'term-inologies'.

Often this does cause difficulties of proper interpretations/translations to arise.




Bob

 

[PiPUK]

'Friable' is my best guess at the genuine technical term. A friable abrasive will basically break down under the action of polishing. That sounds a lot like what detailers consider to be diminishing.

If you care to google it, you might not be so convinced because whilst this one characteristic is the same, it is clear that others are not. Moreover, the abrasives listed in some SMAT type polishes - are friable.

So in conclusion... errrrr, not a clue!

 

[FUNX650]

'Friable' is my best guess at the genuine technical term. A friable abrasive will basically break down under the action of polishing. That sounds a lot like what detailers consider to be diminishing.

If you care to google it, you might not be so convinced because whilst this one characteristic is the same, it is clear that others are not. Moreover, the abrasives listed in some SMAT type polishes - are friable.

So in conclusion... errrrr, not a clue!

'Friable':
My Lame Attempt...With Excellent Follow-up by Vegas Transplant...
Including Exerpts From Some Mike Phillips' Articles...

For 08.28.2012's "new word of the day"...I offer:

Friable

Definition:
-Crumbly
-Easily crumbled, or reduced to powder
-Easily broken up
-Fragile; frangible
-(NOTE: Not to be confused with: fryable)


By the above definitions; and, in comparison to "SMAT" car-care products;
I’m wondering:

-Would "DAT" car-care products be considered friable/unfriable?
(For that matter…What is the degree-of-friableness, if any, of the aforementioned SMAT car-care products?)

-Does time/temperature/pressure/speed...among others...
also have to be factors in/for consideration of: abrasives’ friability?

-Can 'inappropriate/wrong technique', during machine-buffing, cause non-friable materials/chemicals to become friable?


Alas...So much to disambiguate…So little time (left for me ..it seems) to do so!!

Comments, anyone, in regards to this friability-matter?




Bob

Q1. Probably for M105 and other longstanding products...3M, Mother's, etc., but not in their newer offerings which have a "wetter" carrier.

Q2. Great question. Probably so...again depending upon the carrier.



As far as friable, I would say yes.
As compared to SMAT, again, Yes.








The disagreement that I have is revealed when friable is defined by the word,"easily".
Over time and under pressure is a process that negates the definition of friable when defined using "easily"...IMO.

Where I really get confused is when you have a product like Optimum Hyper Compound, where both SMAT and DAT technologies are employed.

What's the difference between DAT and SMAT

SMAT - Super Micro Abrasives Technology
DAT - Diminishing Abrasives Technology


DAT - Diminishing Abrasives Technology
Diminishing Abrasives are a category of abrasives that actually break down, pulverize and disintegrate into nothingness as you work them against the paint.

For example, a diminishing abrasive will start out a certain size and/or shape, then under pressure over time as they are worked against the paint they will actually breakdown or break apart. This means they start out aggressive and thus aggressively abrading the paint, as they are worked under pressure over time they begin to break down and as they breakdown their aggressiveness level is reduced to the point that when correctly worked they are completely broken down and all you have left is a mixture of spent or used-up diminishing abrasives and the carrying agent or base they were embodied in to start with. There's also a certain amount of removed paint in this resulting mixture.



SMAT - Super Micro Abrasives Technology
Super Micro Abrasives are as the name states microscopic in size and do not break down like diminishing abrasives. While they may not breakdown like a diminishing abrasive, there does come a point where there effectiveness falls off in performance, my guess is that this is a cumulative effect of the base formula they are embodied in dissipates while particles of removed paint build up in the residue adulterating or diluting their effectiveness.

Just to note, this same adulterating or diluting effect takes place with any abrasive product because as the abrasive remove small particles of paint, these small particle of paint join into the mixture thus changing the ratio or percentage of abrasives to the base formula.


What's the practical difference?
The biggest difference that I can share is this, with diminishing abrasive technology you MUST work the product until the abrasives have completely broken down to insure you don't leave any swirls in the paint. The reason for this is because if you stop buffing before the abrasives have completely broken down then they are still cutting or abrading the paint, thus leaving swirls in the paint.

This isn't really a problem because most diminishing abrasive products when used correctly will break down over a normal buffing cycle, (period of time and number of passes), to sufficiently break the abrasives down. It's usually only an issue for people new to car detailing who are learning as they go.


With Super Micro Abrasive Technology, theoretically, because the abrasives don't break down, or more specifically because the abrasives don't break down like diminishing abrasives break down, you can stop anywhere in the buffing cycle without leaving swirls caused by the abrasives. This would tend to make SMAT products more "Bubba-Proof" with an easier or more flat learning curve.

Because the abrasives don't break down like traditional diminishing abrasives, and from experience leave a very clear, scratch-free finish whether you're using the most aggressive or the most non-aggressive products, this new technology kind of throws a monkey wrench into the philosophy of,

"Use the least aggressive product to get the job done"

The disagreement that I have is revealed when friable is defined by the word,"easily".
Over time and under pressure is a process that negates the definition of friable when defined using "easily"...IMO.

Where I really get confused is when you have a product like Optimum Hyper Compound, where both SMAT and DAT technologies are employed.

Originally Posted by Marketing from AGO store:
A unique blend of proprietary polymers and abrasives allows for rapid removal of sanding marks and deep paint imperfections and defects, like swirls and scratches, all while creating the look of a polish.

If DAT breaks down over time/pressure, and SMAT somehow becomes ineffective and loses it's ability to abrade...
How is it that the OHC Spray can correct while having abrasives that seem to work one against the other???...and finish defect free (albeit a little hazing???)

It seems to me that if the abraded paint somehow coerces the SMAT aspect of the product,...then what about the DAT that is completely rendered???

Or, is this the proprietary function of OHC Spray???

Either way, it is a great product and one that I am PROUD to use regularly.

Bob

 

[Setec Astronomy]

I am coming from a different side than most, I am a chemical formulator so my job is knowing what is in products and hence the question. This is proving to be a particularly difficult area because of the total inconsistency between the terms you guys use and the terms which us formulators use.

'Friable' is my best guess at the genuine technical term. A friable abrasive will basically break down under the action of polishing. That sounds a lot like what detailers consider to be diminishing.

If you care to google it, you might not be so convinced because whilst this one characteristic is the same, it is clear that others are not. Moreover, the abrasives listed in some SMAT type polishes - are friable.

So in conclusion... errrrr, not a clue!

Certainly these abrasives are not the same as those used in the "abrasives" industry (grinding, metal finishing, etc.). I think friable is the right terminology for the DAT, the SMAT as it is described to us would not be friable. It may be that SMAT technology was not so much an abrasive innovation but a grading innovation, being able to use a non-friable without having to worry about the odd large particle causing scratches. Similar to the 3M polishing papers that have better particle distribution than their standard abrasive papers.

 

[AutowerxDetailing]

Certainly these abrasives are not the same as those used in the "abrasives" industry (grinding, metal finishing, etc.). I think friable is the right terminology for the DAT, the SMAT as it is described to us would not be friable. It may be that SMAT technology was not so much an abrasive innovation but a grading innovation, being able to use a non-friable without having to worry about the odd large particle causing scratches. Similar to the 3M polishing papers that have better particle distribution than their standard abrasive papers.

That is kind of the way I understand it. The key abrasive technology of M105, for example, are micro particles of aluminum oxide which has a melting point somewhere around 2000 degrees. When used properly for polishing paint, and while surrounded by the lubricated carrying solution, I can't see enough heat being generated to break down this abrasive.

Sent from my LG-VM701 using AG Online