How does wax bond to paint?

wow this thread brings back a lot of memories when i first started lurking on autopia :). I am really pumped to apply some KSG to the ML this weekend! Maybe I will switch the C320 from zaino to Klasse! :eek: Only time will tell! :D
 
http://www.lipid.co.uk/infores/Lipids/waxes/



"The nature of the other lipid constituents can vary greatly with the source of the waxy material, but they include hydrocarbons, sterol esters, aliphatic aldehydes, alcohols and ketones, beta-diketones, triacylglycerols, and many more. Also, the chain-length and degree of unsaturation and branching of the aliphatic constituents will vary with the origin of the wax, but other than in waxes of marine origin or from some higher animals, the aliphatic moieties tend to be saturated or monoenoic."



"Plant leaf surfaces are coated with a thin layer of waxy material that serves a myriad of functions. This layer is microcrystalline in structure and forms the outer boundary of the cuticular membrane; it is the interface between the plant and the atmosphere. It has a myriad of functions limiting the diffusion of water and solutes, while permitting a controlled release of volatiles. It provides protection from disease and insects, and helps the plants resist drought. As plants cover much of the earth's surface, it seems likely that plant waxes are the most abundant of all natural lipids... [Carnauba] contains mainly wax esters (85%), accompanied by small amounts of free acids and alcohols, hydrocarbons and resins. The wax esters constitute C16 to C20 fatty acids linked to C30 to C34 alcohols, giving C46 to C54 molecular species."





Table 1. The major constituents of plant leaf waxes



Compound/Structure

n-Alkanes CH3(CH2)xCH3 21 to 35C - odd numbered

Alkyl esters CH3(CH2)xCOO(CH2)yCH3 34 to 62C - even numbered

Fatty acids CH3(CH2)xCOOH 16 to 32C - even numbered

Fatty alcohols (primary) CH3(CH2)yCH2OH 22 to 32C - even numbered

Fatty aldehydes CH3(CH2)yCHO 22 to 32C - even numbered

Ketones CH3(CH2)xCO(CH2)yCH3 23 to 33C - odd numbered

Fatty alcohols (secondary) CH3(CH2)xCHOH (CH2)yCH3 23 to 33C - odd numbered

ß-Diketones CH3(CH2)xCOCH2CO(CH2)yCH3 27 to 33C - odd numbered

Triterpenols Sterols, alpha-amyrin, beta-amyrin, uvaol, lupeol, erythrodiol

Triterpenoid acids Ursolic acid, oleanolic acid, etc



"In addtion, there may be hydroxy-ß-diketones, oxo-ß-diketones, alkenes, branched alkanes, acids, esters, acetates and benzoates of aliphatic alcohols, methyl, phenylethyl and triterpenoid esters, and many more.



The amount of each lipid class and the nature and proportions of the various molecular species within each class vary greatly according to the plant species and the site of wax deposition (leaf, flower, fruit, etc.) and some data for some well-studied species are listed in Table 2."





Tom
 
High resolution scanning electron microscopy of epicuticular waxes



One of 6 pictures... can you tell that I have today off and it's about 30* out, too cold to wax?



strelitzkl.jpg
 
I didn't find a cut-and-pasteable source, but what I found was that wax is not a pure compound; it is many compounds working together, linked by covalent bonding, performing many complex functions in its original occurence; mostly protection and permeability at the same time. The covalent bonds act between molecules to form the net or film, and also bond to the surface that the wax is applied to, usually covalently, but at least in the case of MPPP, cationically (I know this because Meg's states so specifically). The outer surface of the film presents no sites for other molecules to bond to (sometimes, depending on scale, experienced by us physically as "slickness"). I don't know if aminofunctional silicones bond covalently or cationically, I didn't look it up.





Tom
 
More pictures; these are what different waxes look like at the molecular level, where they're bonded to the plant:



Aristolochia type

aristokl.jpg






Hypericum type

hyperikl.jpg






Convallaria type

convallkl.jpg




Berberis type

berberiskl.jpg




Fabales type

fabalkl.jpg






Tom
 
Also, this explains somewhat the fallacy of layering, at least layering of waxes. You can make the film/net denser, to a point, but not thicker. When the film/net reaches maximum density, excess product wipes off. It's not chemically structured to bond to itself "vertically", only "horizontally" (as part of the film/net). As the wax film wears off/decays, the film becomes less dense, not thinner. As you re-wax, you restore density, not thickness.



Tom
 
The fallacy of layering? I get it to a point, then I get brain farts when I think of hand dipped candles and spit shined shoes. I know you're not "rubbing" the wax off a hand dipped, but it does layer(Stick to itself). What ever wax is in Kiwi SP CAN be layered. I've seen it at least 1/32, or .030, or about 1mm thick. I would'nt want it that thick on a car. I put "Whatever" on, till it does'nt improve the looks. Rarely do I stop at one coat of(.........). Tom, I think you, of all Vicons of Reflection, keep going after the Ultimate, whatever it takes, coat after coat. Brain layering, or wax layering.....As long as you "Keep your stick on the ice"
 
Maurice "Rocket" Richard. I have a hockey card autographed by him, and that's what he signed, in French; "en tout temps maintenir baton sur le glace!"



First, remember that I'm not an organic chemist, I'm a guy who spent an hour or so Googling for the answer. I guess a person could put #26 on his car with a spatula if he wanted to.... :D



There are hundreds, if not thousands and hundreds of thousands, of different types of waxes. I searched specifically for "wax bonding chemistry".



Candles are paraffin, a mineral wax. Kiwi very well may be, as well (smell it). Not all waxes will be the same, after all. Sodium, iron, gold, lead, and magnesium are all metals, but the properties of each are wildly different.



You can keep putting "whatever" on. To a point, I'd agree that you are increasing the density of the film. Beyond that point, the physical act of rubbing the surface with the applicator smooths the paint and induces gloss, but doesn't increase the thickness of the film.



I usually only do 2 coats of final product, by the way. Thinking about it in the way that I learned this afternoon while looking this stuff up, the successive applications of product that I've called "layering" are not different products on top of each other, but different products mixed together in the same film, producing a blend of looks. For example, the shininess of #20 plus the wetness of #26, in the same film, not the wetness of #26 over the shininess of #20.



Brainstorming that... could I mix #20 and liquid #26 into one bottle and apply it? My guess is, no. The solvents are probably not compatible, and the solvents need to leave the #20 before the #26 can be added to the film.



Tom
 
Dear Tom,



Thanks for the impressive research. That pretty much clears it up for me.



One of the fascinating things about detailing is thatâ€â€�fanatic as we may beâ€â€�most of us don’t know what really happens where the rubber meets the road. Instead, we intuitively use a model based on what we see and experience. My default detailing model for putting one product over another, or applying several coats of the same product, is that I am laying down layers over my paint, like multiple sheets of Saran Wrap. In my heart I know this is not what is really happening, but the model works…most of the time.



My model breaks down and becomes almost useless when I am giving more than a moment’s thought to whether I should use Klasse, Zaino, EX, UPP or Glanz Wax on my son’s car; when I am trying to figure out how a layer of EX could possibly bond to a layer of VM; and when I am staring at the Zaino price list wondering if I really need Z1, ZFX, or both Z5 and Z2 (higher optical properties? 99.9% optically perfect?).



I bumped the model up a level by postulating the paint surface as rugged terrain and assuming the oils, wax or sealant smoothed it out by filling in the gaps and valleys, hardening to a greater or lesser degree, and thereby forming a mechanical bond with the paint. But I also doubted that the coating was reacting chemically with the hard, relatively inert paint surface. This helped a bit, but still left more questions unanswered than answered. (OK, you fill the gaps with VM, but what is left for the EX to bond to?)



Then along you come, Tom, with your Gummy Bear research and your primer on how to detail the leaves on my house plants. Now we’re getting somewhere. I happen to love Gummy Bears, and your observation that they are protected by a layer of carnauba wax, presumably cured, is interesting indeed. I also know, from my own experience, that Gummy Bears stick to each other. Every time I extract a single Gummy Bear from a clump (so as not to appear overly gluttonous) I now wonder if it was stuck to its neighbors a) by covalent cross-linking, b) by cationic bonding, or c) because one of the kids took it out of his mouth and returned it to the bag. It doesn’t really matter. The point is that two cured layers of carnauba are somehow bonding with each other. Add that to what you have said about the complexity of wax composition, and what you (and Mequiar’s) have said about cationic bonding of wax to the paint surface, and I am ready to accept that by some mysterious chemical process involving the sharing of electrons, which I don’t have to understand, wax and presumably synthetic sealants can form a decent bond with the paint and with each other, even though cured.



But the significant breakthrough for me is your conclusion that successive applications of wax create a denser film rather than multiple discrete layers of wax. If I assume that the same principal also applies to synthetic and hybrid sealants (and why not), I can view the process as individual molecules bonding to the paint surface, but not necessarily completely covering it, thus leaving room for the next application to bond to the paint (and to the existing wax molecules) and increasing the film density. If the microscopic paint terrain is a rugged as I think it is, this means that there is that much more paint surface for the wax to attach to. It also means that there may be an additional element of mechanical bonding through friction.



It also suggest that, instead of filling up the gaps, like pouring water in a hole, the product is coating the surfaces of the hills and valleys.



With these few leaps of logic (which might make a chemist roll his eyes heavenward), I think I now have model that seems to reasonably answer most of my questions:



1. VM’s magic ingredients bond to the paint, but leave room for EX to attach to the paint as well. I suppose it is possible that the EX might displace and replace some of the VM, but, as Steve (Poorboy) has said, you can avoid scrubbing out the VM by applying the EX by hand rather than by PC. This is also consistent with your corollary that instead of a layer of EX over VM, you really have a blend of the two in the same film. More justification for experimenting, and don’t we love that!



2. Instead of environmental assaults eating through a thick layer of wax from above, I now view it as attacks on individual molecules which are attached to the paint, destroying the bond. This (as well as the layer theory) suggests that multiple applications might result in greater longevity and durability. Have you found that to be the case?



3. I’ve always been puzzled about why Z1 is necessary and what ZFX, as a replacement for Z1, actually does, other than decrease drying and curing times. Revisiting these questions with my new and improved model, I find I still don’t have a clue. Oh, well. You can’t have everything.



4. Successive layers of Zaino make sense because their molecules would be attaching to the bare paint areas remaining after previous applications, resulting in a denser layer with greater coverage. It might also suggest, though, that you will soon reach a point of diminishing returns as the film reaches maximum density, although who’s to say that Zaino doesn’t just start bonding to itself and developing a thicker layer? Or maybe that 43rd coat of Z2 just feels good, and doesn’t bond to anything.



The great thing about my new model is that now I can do almost anything without feeling stupid. (The model does not apply to the paint prep side of the detailing house. There are lots of stupid things I can do over there.)



Thanks again,

Bruce
 
OK, some, mainly chemists and pros, insist that waxes do not "bond" or "layer." I believe it, that waxes do not "cure" or "crosslink," for quite some time, and I¡Â¦ll try to explain why. Bear with my examples ¡V they¡Â¦re tedious, but I can¡Â¦t think of any other way to explain:



Think of wax as vegetable oil.



If you were to apply vegetable oil on your paint and wipe off what you can, you¡Â¦d get a nice, slick clearcoat from the small amount of oil remaining on the paint. Now you do it again, "layer" #2. The newly applied oil mixes with the old oil, so after you wipe it off, there¡Â¦s still the same amount of oil as there was with "layer" #1. So basically, each additional application of oil did not build up into thicker layers. And of course, waiting 24 hours before each application of oil won¡Â¦t make a difference ¡V vegetable oil doesn¡Â¦t exactly "cure" or "dry," right?



Now think the same with waxes; they do not harden like polymers do. That¡Â¦s why it¡Â¦s useless to wait 24 hours between "layers" (better word: "applications") of an oil like EX. Therefore, if you read carefully enough, you can assume from this paragraph that IMO EX doesn¡Â¦t form ________.



Now think of a pure synthetic like Klasse or Zaino as latex paint.



If you were to paint only a 4x4¡Â¨ section of your kitchen wall repetitively, non-stop... brushing and brushing that same spot over again, while dipping into more and more paint, it would not be too much thicker than it would if you painted it once. The more and more paint that gets painted on, just ¡Â§removes¡Â¨ and mixes with itself, and slides down the wall once it cannot hold paint anymore. But if you wait for the paint to dry, and then paint it again, you would be forming thicker layers of paint.



In a similar way, this is why I believe synthetics layer. It eventually dries and hardens, like paint, forming bases for each incoming layer. And the paragraph above explains why you need to wait 24 hours (or an instant-cure accelerator) before layers. Or else, each application onto a non-dried layer rewets itself. Right?



The latex-plant analogy can also be applied to, "Why doesn¡Â¦t my paint become noticeably (inches) thicker with 1,000,000 layers of Zaino?" Mike Phillips has attempted to answer this, and I think my paint analogy works. Your wall does not become inches thicker with 1,000,000 layers of paint ¡V each coat is too thin, only a few microns, and the environment will always degrade the coat faster than you can apply paint and let it dry.



The explanations above let me say more freely what I¡Â¦ve always said: waxes (veggy oil) never dry, and synthetic sealants (latex paint) do. And because of that, waxes don¡Â¦t layer, and synthetics do. See?



There's also an excellent thread on Autopia with some of our chemist members explaining why they categorize "hybrid sealants" (EX, BF, etc.) as "waxes" (non-layerable) IMO some popular hybrids are just carnauba waxes with added resin. And the thread below will explain how it just doesn't work:



http://www.autopia.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27566



Lastly, this is NOT a bash against waxes/hybrid sealants or a push for synthetics. If you think so, then you have the wrong idea. This is just my explanation on why waxes do not crosslink, layer, or cure, and why synthetics do crosslink, cure, or layer. From this, we also understand why synthetics need to cure in order to layer.











(The answer to the blank was "layer.")

But you knew that already, I hope... if not, go ahead and re-read!
 
I didn't research anything but waxes, so my explanation is only for wax; but most consumer products called "wax" are actually man-made products containing wax; they have been engineered to behave a certain way.



I know what you mean when you say "crosslink" and "cure".



Pour a pint of vegetable oil into a swimming pool. Something keeps that oil in one big drop, right? The bonds are there. Waxes and oils undeniably form films. Polymers form stronger, less permeable films.



To me, "curing" of a wax (I am not meaning the chemical term "wax" but the engineered product "wax") means specifically drying of the solvents. Think of your polymer analogy, and then imagine what it would be like if the bonds were much weaker. What would happen? It wouldn't layer, but some of it would smear and some of it would increase the density of the film, as the solvents in the product broke apart the weaker bonds and inserted more active ingredients.



I think the solvents in the polymer products, being stronger, would do the same thing, break down the bonds and increase the density of the film. The polymers aren't like paint, just like waxes aren't like polymers. If the polymers were like paint, then they would be called clearcoat.



I'm still thinking polymers don't layer, but I've been wrong lots of times, and very well could be wrong again.





Tom
 
BW, I agree that it would be difficult to layer vegetable oil or wet latex paint. But I have difficulty thinking of carnauba auto wax as vegetable oil that doesn’t dry or bond, and therefore can’t be layered.



I can't really say whether wax cures or cross-links, and your statement that waxes "do not harden like polymers do" sounds reasonable to me. But my non-chemist senses tell me that wax does dry, and that it hardens to some extent when it is dry. Paste wax is soft and moist when you apply it, but when you give it time to dry, a white residue appears on the paint surface which looks very much like a solid. And I think we can all agree that when you buff off the residue, wax still remains on the paint.



If it behaved like a vegetable oil which does not dry, it would be easily wiped off, or at least gone after the first car wash.



You stated that chemists and pros insist that waxes do not "bond." But somehow or other wax sticks to the paint. Whether that adhesion rises to the level of a "bond" in chemistry parlance I couldn't say. I like to think that there could be at least some degree of physical bonding by friction between the hardened wax and the irregular paint surface. Mosca has suggested the additional possibility of a chemical "cationic" bond between wax and paint. The ad copy for Medallion Premium Paint Protection on the Meguiar's web site says, "The exclusive Meguiar's MiraBenzâ„¢ bonding system uses positively charged molecules to "lock" the finish to the surface." That sounds like cationic bonding to me (although I would feel much more comfortable hearing it from Mike).



This still doesn’t mean that you can layer carnauba auto wax, and maybe you can’t. Mosca would agree. His research tells him that instead of layering, the wax film becomes more dense with additional applications. Either way, it suggests that an extra application or two of wax (or EX) wouldn’t necessarily be a complete waste of time.
 
"Bond" not like sodium and chlorine bond to form table salt, but bond like grease from working on your engine bonds to your skin and won't wipe off.



Some chemists and biologists spend their entire careers studying the nature and behavior of films (no, not THOSE kind!). Again, I'm just a curious guy who Googled for the answer and stopped when I thought I came up with it. I would suspect that the true nature of the answer is much more complex and far less intuitive and able to be imagined than we think.



Play a thought game with me here for a moment.



Imagine that you bought not a can of #26, but a pallet of #26. Then, instead of taking an applicator and creating a film of #26 on your car, you took a putty knife and scooped the entire contents of the can out onto the hood, repeating this until the entire car was covered with a 2" thick coating of #26. How is this different than applying a pallet of #26 over a long time with an applicator in a discrete film? It's hard to explain the difference, but it is definitely different.



I have to hurry, I have to go to church; I'll pick up later.







Tom
 
Mosca said:
Play a thought game with me here for a moment.



Imagine that you bought not a can of #26, but a pallet of #26. Then, instead of taking an applicator and creating a film of #26 on your car, you took a putty knife and scooped the entire contents of the can out onto the hood, repeating this until the entire car was covered with a 2" thick coating of #26. How is this different than applying a pallet of #26 over a long time with an applicator in a discrete film? It's hard to explain the difference, but it is definitely different.
Click to expand...



I think if you acutally applied that much wax to the car (an entire pallet) you would have a pretty significant film build of wax on your car. Certainly more than if you'd just done two applications of it. Putty-knifing it on isn't quite the same, though, as you aren't wiping it on the paint, and you don't buff it off. Otherwise, if you tried to buff it, each puck of wax would probably just fall off and you'd have even less protection than from one regular application.



Imagine applying a pallet's worth, or at least a few cans of #26. Say you applied it, didn't buff (just buff when you're all done), and let it sit for about 12-24 hours before doing another coat (maybe less if you were in a warmer environment that could evaporate the solvents quicker). I really think you could start to build an appreciable film of wax on your car. I doubt it would look very good, and I doubt it would protect very much longer than two thin coats, but I think you could build it up. I'm almost tempted to try this on a mirror housing or something, but shudder at the thought of eventually trying to remove it...



Oh, Mosca, you'd mentioned earlier about mixing #20 and #26 together but that the solvents are probably incompatible. If this were the case, then if you allowed a coat of #20 to cure, then topped it with #26, wouldn't the #26 not dissolve the #20? And couldn't the natural wax still stick to the polymer #20? I mean, you said the wax has a sticky end and a slick end. Wouldn't this give you more of the look of a carnauba, but still have longevity closer to the #20? It always felt to me like carnauba could be put over stuff like Klasse or Blackfire or MPPP and still have durability similar to the underlying layer (though obviously the wax look and beading wouldn't last that long). But that's more gut feeling stuff....
 
Hmm, excellent points. I reread my post, and my vocabulary was off. The words "bond" and "harden" were misused, because theoretically, if a wax stays on the paint, it still is in some degree bonding. Rather than questioning if a wax bonds or not (it does, as I just contradicted myself), perhaps a better question is how wax bonding is different from polymer bonding.



IMO, the difference is that the catoinic (sp?) bond of paint and aminosilicone polymer is much stronger than the less well-organized wax bond. And polysiloxane sealants like Klasse and Zaino bond stronger because they contain resins that cure or crosslink onto the surface it’s being applied to. Such a curing product will link its chain of uniform molecules together, and then become a durable, slightly different compound (still a tough cohesive repeating chain) than what it was previously.



So the word I should have used instead is "crosslink." It’s the crosslinking that occurs that can explain a synthetic’s greater bonding ability than a wax. And as Mosca has been trying to explain, greater bonding = greater durability. Right?
 
Aurora40 said:
Imagine applying a pallet's worth, or at least a few cans of #26. Say you applied it, didn't buff (just buff when you're all done), and let it sit for about 12-24 hours before doing another coat (maybe less if you were in a warmer environment that could evaporate the solvents quicker). I really think you could start to build an appreciable film of wax on your car. I doubt it would look very good, and I doubt it would protect very much longer than two thin coats, but I think you could build it up. I'm almost tempted to try this on a mirror housing or something, but shudder at the thought of eventually trying to remove it...
Click to expand...



I think I'll give it a try. I have a can of #26. I'll apply as thick of a layer of wax as I can and let the solvents evaporate for 24 hours. Once "dry," I'll attempt to apply another thick coat and see if I can get it to layer or build up into an even thicker film.



My guess is that it won't happen. The second application will rewet and mix with the first application, and once at the point where diminishing returns... when the surface can hold no more wax, it'll have nowhere to go, just back onto the applicator.
 
Aw guys, now my head hurts.



You'd get a thicker coat of product, but would you get a thicker film, down where it counts?



Ya know, where's a chemist when you really need one? Probably out hobnobbing with supermodels, when we have important questions to be answered!





Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top