Any Major Differences b/t these hybrid coatings?

[FUNX650]

nano

Thanks Chris...For Your:

Most recent and Excellent posting...Loaded with pertinent information!!!
I do appreciate it.

{Appreciation: My personal comment will follow.}

A few of my reasons for my bolding nano in your post are:

-Nano seems to be one of the latest buzz-words
-Nano-science has been part of the "Chemical-World" since at least 1959.
-There is the 'bottom-up' and the 'top-down' definitions of something being nano.
-IMO: A 'line of demarcation' should be drawn between
Nanoscience:
The design, characterization, production, and application of structures, devices, and systems by controlled
manipulation of size and shape at the nanometer scale (atomic, molecular, and macromolecular scale)
that produces structures, devices, and systems with at least one novel/superior
characteristic or property…in the .2-100nm range/scale…where quantum physics exists.

And…
Nanotechnology:
Production/manufacturing of nanoscale materials, nanoscale components, nanoscale particles...
which are not typically products in their own right, but generally serve
as raw materials, ingredients or additives in existing products


Then there's 'Polymers'...(synthetic, for this post)...
-I remember when they were the latest buzz-words
-Chemists have been making polymers, which are large molecules made up of nanoscale subunits, since the 1930's.
-10's upon 10's upon 10's of thousands polymers
-Used/Effects almost everything in our day-to-day living


Back to Appreciation...

An Open letter to: Dr. G, Chris@Optimum, and the Optimum staff:

Dear Sirs and Madams:

"Although your Optimum-Coatings are stated as being a pre-polmer resin, (other ingredients/chemicals, et al)...
I appreciate that the marketing of Optimum-Coatings has never been presented/hyped as part of the:
Nano-buzz-wording modus operandi-machinery.

For this act alone, I commend you.

But your candidness and forthrighteousness in doing so; along with
providing O-C's 'tech-information' is, in my opinion...beyond reproach.

As such: This to be appreciated as well. Thanks".

Bob

 

[Waxmax]

I think I am satisfied with this answer and have been educated by Mr Megane and Bob's posts. Maybe one day I can get some Opti-Coat and try it out for myself but currently I am more curious & convinced about Gtechniq, CQuartz and 22PLE.

I would like to know if there is any difference between SiO and SiO2 based coatings.

I may be off base, but aren't all the quartz (glass) coatings based on SiO2?

 

[PiPUK]

More important to this discussion is the nature of covalent bonds. OptiCoat forms permanent carbon-oxygen bonds and are not broken with caustic or inorganic acids. On the ther hand, SiO forms weak hydrogen bonds which are reversible and break with exposure to caustic solutions. That is why OptiCoat is not affected by detergents or degreasers. Besides polishing, the only way OptiCoat is removed is by using paint removers. So basically, anything that removes aliphatic urethanes or other OEM clear coats, can remove opti-coat. In the past four years after tens of thousands of Opti-Coat applications, the handful of cases where Opti-Coat did not bond properly was shown to be due to having residual waxes or polishing oils on the surface. So like I have stated, OptiCoat is a "coating", like paint is a coating...not merely covering the surface, but becoming the surface. Our most recent independant test on hardness and chemical exposure for our Austrailian distributor can be read here.

SiO bonds, on the other hand, will most likely be diminished or removed with strong detergents, caustic solutions, or degreasers. Whether this happens over time or with exposure is irrelevant. Any product that requires reapplication over time or needs a booster/topper can not be considered permanent. As we stated earlier, Opti-Coat Pro now carries an available life-time warranty for those getting it professionally applied through our program and the only thing that voids the warranty is using abrasive products e.g. polishing!

I am unsure why but I presume we are having misuse of terminology in an attempt to be accessible. Hydrogen bonding has almost nothing to do with SiO (at least not without water present) - the bonding within SiO is purely covalent, just as it is in SiC. Moreover the bond strength of SiO is higher (i.e. it is stronger) than SiC (>600 kj/mol vs ~450) - as I say, I presume you are trying to present it in a simple manner and the science has got muddled.

As far as I am concerned the comparison is best not made this way because your products rely on bulk strength (thanks to the massive thickness which is not pertinent to the thin coatings) whereas the thin coatings rely more upon the bond to the substrate (which in your case is not exposed and thus much less important). Both are fab, just in very different ways. rops:

 

[FUNX650]

...
(I have seen the difficulties people have in creating these structures under controlled lab conditions so I apologise for being sceptical about consumer goods achieving it so easily!).

Nano...(cont'd)

-I agree that: Difficulties do abound in the nano-world.

-I too was sceptical about consumer-goods achieving nano-scale particles/materials, etc....easily or not.

Then along came nano:
Cosmetics, sunscreens, synthetic-rubber/carbon-black for tires, Samsung's viewing screens, etc.;...
............all consumer-available products............
Utilizing newly-formed products from nanoscience/nanotechnologies.

Take sunscreens and TiO2 as an example:
-Nanoscientists took TiO2---the 'White' in white paint, cosmetics, sunscreens...
-Reduced its size to the 20-40nm range
-And discovered that, due to quantum physics, it become a clear nanoparticle. Making it:
-More acceptable, at least appearance wise, when used in sunscreen-applications...
No longer that unappealingly fugly, whitish-crap smeared on a person's body.

Speaking of Atomic Force Microscope (AFM)...
-Here's a photo of nano-TiO2:


AFM's:
-Developing new instruments to be able to "see" at the nanoscale is a research field in itself.
-Shown here is the pyramid shaped tip of an AFM, with a platinum electrode measuring one hundredth of a nanometer
that has been deposited on it via: focused ion beam (FIB) deposition.
[Image: C. Menozzi, G.C. Gazzadi]




One of my favorite "nano-photos":

-Showing climatic change on carbon nanotubes (CNT)...
(The health concerns surrounding CNT's notwithstanding, that is.)
[Image: Mr Miguel Ângel Fernández Vindel]



Nano-Stuff...To me: Interesting/Fascinating!!

-I could go on and on...
Whether I'm right...
Or be proven, to be wrong.




Bob

 

[ihaveacamaro]

I am unsure why but I presume we are having misuse of terminology in an attempt to be accessible. Hydrogen bonding has almost nothing to do with SiO (at least not without water present) - the bonding within SiO is purely covalent, just as it is in SiC. Moreover the bond strength of SiO is higher (i.e. it is stronger) than SiC (>600 kj/mol vs ~450) - as I say, I presume you are trying to present it in a simple manner and the science has got muddled.

As far as I am concerned the comparison is best not made this way because your products rely on bulk strength (thanks to the massive thickness which is not pertinent to the thin coatings) whereas the thin coatings rely more upon the bond to the substrate (which in your case is not exposed and thus much less important). Both are fab, just in very different ways. rops:

Bonding within the SiO and SiC is not important. It is the bond between the SiO/SiC and the paint.

Giving the bond strength of a molecule does not determine the bond strength of the hydrogen bonds it can make. Only the number of hydrogen bonds can determine the strength of the hydrogen bonding between two molecules.

 

[FUNX650]

Bonding within the SiO and SiC is not important. It is the bond between the SiO/SiC and the paint.

Giving the bond strength of a molecule does not determine the bond strength of the hydrogen bonds it can make. Only the number of hydrogen bonds can determine the strength of the hydrogen bonding between two molecules.

Are these bonding-aspects also true at the quantum level??



Bob

 

[PiPUK]

Bonding within the SiO and SiC is not important. It is the bond between the SiO/SiC and the paint.

Giving the bond strength of a molecule does not determine the bond strength of the hydrogen bonds it can make. Only the number of hydrogen bonds can determine the strength of the hydrogen bonding between two molecules.

I stated something along the lines of your first paragraph in my second.

With regards to hydrogen bonding, I would suggest that this is the wrong term as it is basically not applicable here. Hydrogen bonding is a very specific mechanism and its occurrence is probably closer to an exception rather than a rule. Are we actually trying to talk about Van der Waals bonding?

 

[FUNX650]

Are we actually trying to talk about Van der Waals bonding?

Thanks!!

Earlier...(Post#66):

Being in 'another-world' mind-frame...
I was thinking more on how bonds might occur at the nano-scale.



Bob

 

[TroyScherer]

They call me:


Bond, James Bond....

 

[FUNX650]

They call me:


Bond, James Bond....

Mr. Bond:

Knowing that you prefer your Vespers shaken, not stirred...

-What chemical-bonding would you imagine is occuring by the mixing of:

3oz Gin (Gordon's)
1oz Vodka
0.5 oz Lillet Blanc

-And then applying shear stress (shaking) to the above fluids, with ice...
Until reaching an: Ice-cold temperature...
(With this ice-cold mixture of fluids then being strained into a
deep champagne goblet---garnished with a lemon twist) ??


Furthermore...(chemical-bonding notwithstanding)

-Would the mixture of these fluids be considered:
a.) Newtonian/non-Newtonian?
b.) Thixotropic/Rheopectic?
c.) Other?


Regards,

Vesper Lynd

 

[Waxmax]

Now we're back on track.

 

[FUNX650]

Now we're back on track.

Sure wish I had your confidence!!




Bob


NOTE: @OP:
I do apologize for my occasional: "Mini-Hijacking". (As in: Mini-HaHa)

 

[PiPUK]

Earlier...(Post#66):

Being in 'another-world' mind-frame...
I was thinking more on how bonds might occur at the nano-scale.



Bob

The bonds happen at a much smaller level than that, the quantum nature of these things is something not to try to understand unless your livelihood depends on it - the whole topic will bend your mind because it is absolutely anything but logical!

 

[ihaveacamaro]

I stated something along the lines of your first paragraph in my second.

With regards to hydrogen bonding, I would suggest that this is the wrong term as it is basically not applicable here. Hydrogen bonding is a very specific mechanism and its occurrence is probably closer to an exception rather than a rule. Are we actually trying to talk about Van der Waals bonding?

Van der Waals bonding are due to the ever changing slightly electrostatic bonding in molecules. I don't think a sealant based on electrostatic bonding would last very long. I believe Chris said that SiO and SiC sealant molecules use hydrogen bonding (see 2 posts down). So I'm not sure why you would think it's not applicable here?

 

[ihaveacamaro]

Are these bonding-aspects also true at the quantum level??



Bob

What do you mean by quantum level? Quantum is generally associated with electrons, neutrons, and protons. Hydrogen bonds occur because of electrons unequal distribution in molecules containing FON (fluorine, oxygen, or nitrogen). Easy to remember because it sounds like fun.

Anyways, if you mean subatomic scale when you say quantum, then yes hydrogen bonding is true in the quantum level. In fact, occurs because of the electrons in molecules and thus occur because of what happens on the quantum level.

 

[ihaveacamaro]

Sorry, I'm late to the conversation. I've just arrived back home from SEMA. To clarify regarding bonding, I have compared covalent bonds to hydrogen bonds when describing the difference between the way Optimum Coatings bond vs. traditional products (waxes and sealants) or nano sealants.

Here he says waxes, sealants, and nano sealants are based on hydrogen bonding.

 

[FUNX650]

I believe Chris said that SiO and SiC sealant molecules use hydrogen bonding (see 2 posts down).

Here he says waxes, sealants, and nano sealants are based on hydrogen bonding.

Maybe it's just me?...

-If a person is to accept that Optimum's Coatings are of a SiC-molecule-bonding-nature...

-Does that mean that there are actually "SiC sealants"?
(Not saying they don't exist...but I'd appreciate it if you would be so kind
to list one or more such "SiC sealants". Thanks)

I have compared covalent bonds to hydrogen bonds when describing the difference between the way Optimum Coatings bond vs. traditional products (waxes and sealants) or nano sealants.


OptiCoat is a ceramic clear coat originating from USA. The main component is SiC.

I interpret this as:
Opti-Coatings=covalent bonding.
Traditional waxes, sealants/nano-sealants=hydrogen-bonding

Also based on the below posting of Chris@Optimum...In your opinion:

Are my above interpretations correct, or not?

More important to this discussion is the nature of covalent bonds. OptiCoat forms permanent carbon-oxygen bonds and are not broken with caustic or inorganic acids. On the ther hand, SiO forms weak hydrogen bonds which are reversible and break with exposure to caustic solutions.

SiO bonds, on the other hand, will most likely be diminished or removed with strong detergents, caustic solutions, or degreasers.

Rob pointed out that I should not lump all nano sealants together, but I don't see the harm in calling them nano sealants or extended life sealants instead of "coatings". Especially when comparing the main components of SiO based products with our SiC based product.

There are many different nano sealants and while there can be quite a large variation in the chemistries of these sealants, the bonding mechanisms are very similar and limited by the same attributes.

Bob

 

[FUNX650]

What do you mean by quantum level?

-"Nano-ing"
-(An example I gave was TiO2 'being clear' at the 20-40nm range)

FON (fluorine, oxygen, or nitrogen). Easy to remember because it sounds like fun.

I Like!!
(And it is FUN to have civil-debates...IMO.)

The bonds happen at a much smaller level than that, the quantum nature of these things is something not to try to understand unless your livelihood depends on it - the whole topic will bend your mind because it is absolutely anything but logical!

^^^... :iagree: (Wholeheartedly!!!)...^^^

Lots of 'eerie happenstances' occur at that level...
"Bonding" included, if I'm to understand correctly.
.......{Even: Hydophobic-bonding?!?! }......


Also...
-I'm hoping against hope the: "The Good Wife"...doesn't see this post.
-She's had me tested for a lot of things in the past...
She needs no further prompting.



Bob

 

[ihaveacamaro]

-If a person is to accept that Optimum's Coatings are of a SiC-molecule-bonding-nature...

-Does that mean that there are actually "SiC sealants"?
(Not saying they don't exist...but I'd appreciate it if you would be so kind
to list one or more such "SiC sealants". Thanks)



Also based on the below posting of Chris@Optimum...In your opinion:

Are my above interpretations correct, or not?




Bob

I agree with your interpretations. I also said SiO and SiC are both hydrogen bonding and I was wrong, SiO is hydrogen and SiC is covalent. Thanks for the correction Bob rops:

 

[FUNX650]

I agree with your interpretations. I also said SiO and SiC are both hydrogen bonding and I was wrong, SiO is hydrogen and SiC is covalent. Thanks for the correction Bob rops:

Honestly...
-I really haven't approached this Coatings-topic as:
"right vs. wrong"...
-It has a lot of that proverbial: Gray-area...IMO.

As such...I must iterate:
-Thanks for your participation in what I regard as a most interesting subject
that's been opened for debate...:dblthumb2:

-And:
Thanks goes to the OP, and his interest in 'Coatings'...having been piqued/aroused, as well!!



Bob