Coatings - A *Measurable Difference*

P

pingable

New member
So in googling coatings, if you guys are familiar with some of the pics floating around, on the Silca coatings where there is blobs of dried up clear, or even *layers* of it , in a spoon.



I don't own a PTG but for those that do, whether it be Opticoat or any of these variants of silca based coatings out there, I'd be curious how much of a measured difference you are seeing with it on - after you have metered the paint prior to it getting coated.
 
I don't own one either. Optimum usually claims up to 2 microns... though it's likely anywhere from .5-2.0 microns. I typically double coated many areas of my car though and if you read my review ... it's pretty OC, regardless of thickness is indeed a VERY hard coating.
 
The margin of error on most PTGs is in the range of most coatings, so it would be hard to tell.
 
Dan said:
The margin of error on most PTGs is in the range of most coatings, so it would be hard to tell.
Click to expand...



A very important thing to remember. This is why you should not take as gospel anyone reporting coating thickness with such a device. I would expect that a coating manufacturer of any real size would have the research support that they would be able to do scientific measurements (e.g. SIMS profiling or similar) to give an accurate number. If not you should maybe be asking why not!
 
PiPUK said:
A very important thing to remember. This is why you should not take as gospel anyone reporting coating thickness with such a device. I would expect that a coating manufacturer of any real size would have the research support that they would be able to do scientific measurements (e.g. SIMS profiling or similar) to give an accurate number. If not you should maybe be asking why not!
Click to expand...





I do recall a guy, maybe on here doing some testing on Cquartz with thickness and durability. It was for a college project and IIRC he had access to some pretty good equipment. Now I don't know again how accurate the machines and such were that he was using. The durability stuff was interesting. I was never someone who wanted to try the standard Cquartz though. Not that it was bad because it's gotten some good reviews... just something about it I guess.
 
Guitarist302008 said:
I do recall a guy, maybe on here doing some testing on Cquartz with thickness and durability. It was for a college project and IIRC he had access to some pretty good equipment. Now I don't know again how accurate the machines and such were that he was using. The durability stuff was interesting. I was never someone who wanted to try the standard Cquartz though. Not that it was bad because it's gotten some good reviews... just something about it I guess.
Click to expand...



If you ever come across it, please send me a message so I can have a nosey.



As I have said already, it surprises me that this sort of thing is not done more because there are any number of standard surface science techniques available. Focused ion beam and secondary ion mass spectrometry should make it quite easy to measure thicknesses and there is always sectioning and electron microscopy if not (this would also give good information on bond strength). Atomic force microscopy would give topographical information about the surface, give information like smoothness and demonstrate presence of nanoparticles. It does have to be admitted that it would cost several thousand dollars to have work like this done but with the claims which are made, it strikes me that it would be a necessary expenditure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top