Silica Content

WillSports3 said:
Here's an interesting experiment for you. Smear some CQUK on a piece of glass. I did it to an old glass watch face, don't wipe off the highspots. Let that cure for two weeks, and then see what you get.
Click to expand...

My guess would be a coated watch face.
 
I'm not following you, Will. Obviously a coated watch with presumably entrapped solvent that hasn't allowed the silica to organize.
 
Well I mean more as to what the coating looks like as a massive high spot. A lot of people saying beading is an indication of whether or not the coating held up. Assuming this watch is old and you don't care about it, start abusing it with chemicals. You can still see the coating high spot on there even as the beading gets to nil after enough abuse.
 
zmcgovern45 said:
If you have some leftover coatings laying around, a fun experiment to do is to poor 10cc or so of liquid into a small measuring cup like the clear disposable medicine cups (write down the exact amount you poor in to begin with), then let them sit until they harden. After 24-48 hours or so they should be hardened... and here is where it gets interesting... how much product is left? How much of the original 10cc's has evaporated, and how much of it has truly solidified?

I have found some surprising results with this test, and have received some interesting explanations from product reps... long story short, there are some coating products that seem to almost entirely evaporate, leaving behind very little residual solids, meaning the majority of what you are buying is just solvent.

I encourage you to do this on your own :)
Click to expand...

What? Not with your left over coatings???

I can definitely attest to that, given the shards of glass I would see on my bottle of C1 in the past. It'd be an expensive but interesting project. Not sure how much of the SiO2 would reduce to SiO vapor and escape the system.
 
WillSports3 said:
Well I mean more as to what the coating looks like as a massive high spot. A lot of people saying beading is an indication of whether or not the coating held up. Assuming this watch is old and you don't care about it, start abusing it with chemicals. You can still see the coating high spot on there even as the beading gets to nil after enough abuse.
Click to expand...
Right... I have tried explaining this many, many times. Beading is not at all an indication of whether or not any form of protection is or is not present. This goes for waxes, sealants, and coatings.

Beading only indicates high surface tension... surface tension can be altered by a variety of things, it does not mean that the wax, sealant, or coating is gone.


kevincwelch said:
What? Not with your left over coatings???

I can definitely attest to that, given the shards of glass I would see on my bottle of C1 in the past. It'd be an expensive but interesting project. Not sure how much of the SiO2 would reduce to SiO vapor and escape the system.
Click to expand...
Perks of getting a lot of products to try out for free... you're more willing to "waste" some of them for science.

If any part of the coating is turned to vapor, it ultimately doesn't do any good for your paint, right? The only thing that matters is the % of solids remaining. That is what makes up your sacrificial layer... right? That's just how I envision it.
 
That's what I like about that test. Now you can obviously see the coating still on the watch face, but the beading is gone because you've abused the thing with full strength APC, maybe even leaving vinegar on it, etc etc etc. But its still there and protecting it. Hell, smear some salt on it and let it sit on it and see what happens. These coatings are a lot more durable than people think.
I'm curious now Zach, what coatings have you tested that left the least amounts and what left the most amounts?
 
zmcgovern45 said:
If any part of the coating is turned to vapor, it ultimately doesn't do any good for your paint, right? The only thing that matters is the % of solids remaining. That is what makes up your sacrificial layer... right? That's just how I envision it.
Click to expand...

Agree. Back to my original question: does the higher silica content translate to better protection? Is there an advantage to having a coating with 90% silica v a coating with 60% silica -- and is it significant (in a practical or real world sense)?

I've always felt beading and sheeting were proxy measures of protection.
 
I love this type of discussion. It reminds me of the "percentage of carnauba" threads of old. I think the quality and quantity of SIO2 may not be the most important part of the coating equation. How would we know anyway if there was 60% or 95% SIO2 in a coating anyway? We just have the manufacturers word to go on anyway, and we know how much that is worth, right?
 
rlmccarty2000 said:
I love this type of discussion. It reminds me of the "percentage of carnauba" threads of old. I think the quality and quantity of SIO2 may not be the most important part of the coating equation. How would we know anyway if there was 60% or 95% SIO2 in a coating anyway? We just have the manufacturers word to go on anyway, and we know how much that is worth, right?
Click to expand...

TACSystem states how much silica is in their coatings. Gyeon states how much is in Bathe+ and Wet Coat. I think that's what prompted my curiosity about coatings and the level of protection they provide and whether that's related to the content of silica. If coating X contains 90% silica (or is stated to contain that much...) and costs $100 for 30 mL and if coating Y contains 60% silica and costs $75 for 30 mL, there obviously is a relationship between the stated silica content and the cost (from a retail perspective). That could be purely marketing since even though X has more silica, the additional cost over Y may be miniscule from a manufacturing standpoint. That's only one issue. If coating X (90% silica) lasts for 3y and coating Y (60% silica) lasts for 2y, is that because of the silica content or because of some other factor? Either way, I'd probably go with X. But, I have to think it's due to the silica content. To me, if that were the case, the additional cost of 90% silica would be worth it to me -- if the protection was in fact that long. Now if Y (60% silica) gets you 2 years and X (90% silica) gets you 2 years and 1 month, there's no real benefit to the higher content.

I like beading and sheeting as much as the next guy, but protection is more important in my opinion. For my personal vehicle, if more silica means significantly more/longer protection, I'm going to buy the more expensive product.
 
kevincwelch said:
TACSystem states how much silica is in their coatings. Gyeon states how much is in Bathe+ and Wet Coat. I think that's what prompted my curiosity about coatings and the level of protection they provide and whether that's related to the content of silica. If coating X contains 90% silica (or is stated to contain that much...) and costs $100 for 30 mL and if coating Y contains 60% silica and costs $75 for 30 mL, there obviously is a relationship between the stated silica content and the cost (from a retail perspective). That could be purely marketing since even though X has more silica, the additional cost over Y may be miniscule from a manufacturing standpoint. That's only one issue. If coating X (90% silica) lasts for 3y and coating Y (60% silica) lasts for 2y, is that because of the silica content or because of some other factor? Either way, I'd probably go with X. But, I have to think it's due to the silica content. To me, if that were the case, the additional cost of 90% silica would be worth it to me -- if the protection was in fact that long. Now if Y (60% silica) gets you 2 years and X (90% silica) gets you 2 years and 1 month, there's no real benefit to the higher content.

I like beading and sheeting as much as the next guy, but protection is more important in my opinion. For my personal vehicle, if more silica means significantly more/longer protection, I'm going to buy the more expensive product.
Click to expand...

I agree and if there were other ingredients that gave long lasting protection and gloss besides Silica.. you would think that the manufacture would state that. It seems to me that Silica is the key ingredient that gives the protection and gloss, but you can only use a limited amount.
 
Rsurfer said:
I agree and if there were other ingredients that gave long lasting protection and gloss besides Silica.. you would think that the manufacture would state that. It seems to me that Silica is the key ingredient that gives the protection and gloss, but you can only use a limited amount.
Click to expand...

What about TIo2?

PA has both SIo2 + TIo2
 
ronkh57 said:
What about TIo2?

PA has both SIo2 + TIo2
Click to expand...
I remember that some of the benefits
{such as: odor-reduction; breaking-up
and decomposition of organic matter}
of photocatalytic TiO2 (that's energized
by UV-A light sources)...were realized
and utilized during the SARS outbreak.


Perhaps vehicle Coatings manufacturers
are also using photocatalytic TiO2 for not
only those benefits, but also for other benefits
such as: self-cleaning, water-shedding, etc...



Bob
 
what happens when you spray a silicia product like high gloss on top of a wax?
 
Lot of coatings are made with polydimethilsiloxane, which are chains of Si linked with O, it ends up SiO2 when it cures by reacting with O2 molecules present in the air.
 
panthershark said:
I've used moonlight and documentation states 20-25%....i've also heard the Gyeon can coat is about 5%


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Gyeon rep indicated Can Coat around 30%...I think website just lists as > 10% so dunno.
 
I love these scientific discussions! Especially from some of you folks who understand more of this stuff than I do.
 
Technically I think the silica content only really determines hardness, not protection. One application would only bond a certain amount anyway so it's not like you can layer it on thick and get a thicker layer without a ton of high spots. The protection comes from how the sio2 is used. Just like anything, it's the purity or grade of sio2 used in the coating as well. TiO provides a different shine, just look at the difference between cquartz uk versus cquartz classic. Look at some of the other coatings that look like high end wax when put on.
I find coatings to be fascinating quite frankly. Look at opticoat, it doesn't shine as much but it protects very very well. Look at polish angel, their coating is applied like a wax basically. You look at glosscoat that if you're skilled enough, you can apply like a wowa coating and then cquartz uk that you have to be much more careful with it. It's a fascinating aspect of detailing I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top