Paint Meter/Thickness Gauges!

SuperBee364 said:
No worries, Howareb, thanks.



The search continues, then, for one that will only give the thickness of the topmost layer, without being as pricey as the Defelsko.



Well I hate to bust you bubble, but you either get the Defelsko (shows individual layers), or you get the total thickness. That is all that is made at this time. If a meter exsisted, like you are looking for, it would most likely be an ultra-sonic meter. I just do not think that there are any meters that can just do the top most layer, and if theere is, it still would be expensive based upon the technology needed. Just my observation though, so take it for what it is worth.
 
I was afraid of that... Thanks for the info. The wife is gonna make me detail a *bunch* of cars before she'll let me spring for the Defelsko. Guess I better get to work.
 
SuperBee364 said:
No worries, Howareb, thanks.



The search continues, then, for one that will only give the thickness of the topmost layer, without being as pricey as the Defelsko.



Howareb is correct regarding the thickness measurements and associated technologies.



Ultrasonic thickness instruments are typically used in the plastic and wood industries, which have difficulty with magnetic and Eddy current measurement technologies. However, even with ultrasound technology, the ability to measure multilayer applications are difficult because



1. optimal measurement for ultrasonic gages should be greater than 1 mil or 25 microns.

2. the transducer on the gage "listens" to the loudest echoes bouncing back from each layer above the substrate, and ignores the softer echoes.



So, SuperBee364, if you are trying to measure the thickness of only the top-most(clear coat) - you must keep the above two factors in mind, because if the clear coat is less than 1 mil, or if your clear coat doesn't reflect the signal "loud" enough, your expensive ultrasonic thickness gauge can't provide you with accurate and reliable readings. In fact, it might be give you a wrong sense of confidence.



With all that in mind, the best ultrasonic thickness instrument companies out there with strong histories are Dakota and Elcometer. Hope this piece of information explains the issues that you may be facing.
 
SuperBee364 said:
I was afraid of that... Thanks for the info. The wife is gonna make me detail a *bunch* of cars before she'll let me spring for the Defelsko. Guess I better get to work.



So what Defelsko are you thinking of Supe?
 
carcat1 said:
Howareb is correct regarding the thickness measurements and associated technologies.



Ultrasonic thickness instruments are typically used in the plastic and wood industries, which have difficulty with magnetic and Eddy current measurement technologies. However, even with ultrasound technology, the ability to measure multilayer applications are difficult because



1. optimal measurement for ultrasonic gages should be greater than 1 mil or 25 microns.

2. the transducer on the gage "listens" to the loudest echoes bouncing back from each layer above the substrate, and ignores the softer echoes.



So, SuperBee364, if you are trying to measure the thickness of only the top-most(clear coat) - you must keep the above two factors in mind, because if the clear coat is less than 1 mil, or if your clear coat doesn't reflect the signal "loud" enough, your expensive ultrasonic thickness gauge can't provide you with accurate and reliable readings. In fact, it might be give you a wrong sense of confidence.



With all that in mind, the best ultrasonic thickness instrument companies out there with strong histories are Dakota and Elcometer. Hope this piece of information explains the issues that you may be facing.



Very much so, thank you!
 
SuperBee364 said:
The PosiTector 200, but man, it's some serious coin.



No worries I am with you. I guess that our purchases together will put Deflesko in the green for this quarter. I keep telling myself that it is a needed business expense. I am trying to play a con-game with myself. :D
 
I've been playing around with Greg's Highland PTG. I'm starting to re-think the necessity of the three layer reading Defelsko...



My primary use of a PTG would, of course, be to determine the thickness of the clear coat. I was thinking that would only be possible using the Defelsko, since it will actually tell you the thickness of each layer (primer, base, and CC). Well, there may be other options.



This isn't an exact way to tell the thickness of the clear coat, but I think it might be close enough. By raising the hood of my car, I can see where the clear coat layer of my front quarter panels stop. Now assuming that the base color layer was applied uniformly to the entire quarter panel, I took thickness readings along the entire length that didn't have clear coat applied to it. I came up with an average reading of 2.3 mils. I then also took readings of other panels (like under the hood, and around the trunk) that had been painted but not clear coated. I think that some of these panels didn't have as thick of a color base applied to them. I got readings as low as 1.5 around the trunk. I decided to use the readings from the quarter panels, since I thought it would be likely that the area right adjacent to the part that was clear coated would have the same thickness of color layer.



So assuming that the readings from the quarter panels more accurately represented the thickness of the color layer, I used 2.3 as my base reading for the thickness of the primer/base. I then took readings all over the car.



On panels that I hadn't compounded, I averaged 5.3 mils. The horizontal surfaces (that had seen multiple passes of SIP and purple foamed, as well as multiple passes of finishing polishes averaged 5.0, with a low of 4.8(!). So I'm assuming that my clear coat is approximately 2.5 to 3.0 mils thick, and this is after all the polishing I've done. I guess that would make sense, assuming that clear coats are usually a bit thicker than the primer and color layers combined. It would also appear that in several areas I have reached the max recommended clear coat removal of .5 mils. :(



However, I'm starting to have second thoughts about the "max recommended clear coat removal" numbers. It would seem to me that an actual minimum clear coat thickness would be more important than an amount removed. Even afer removing as much as I have, in the thinnest areas, I still have about 2.5 mils of clear left.



I'm also thinking it would be helpful to have some sort of minimum basline clear coat thickness established for doing customer cars. It's impossible to know the cars history before you got it. How would you ever know if the recommended max clear removal numbers of .3 to .5 mils was already reached? It would be far more practical to say something like "well, this car has 2.4 mils of clear on it, and since the minimum safe clear thickness is (and this is just a guess) 1.8, I do have some clear to work with."



This is starting to make my head spin.... Help!
 
SuperBee364 said:
.. I'm starting to have second thoughts about the "max recommended clear coat removal" numbers. It would seem to me that an actual minimum clear coat thickness would be more important than an amount removed...



Yeah, it *is* all about having a sufficiently thick layer of clear.



But in practice I dunno if determining that would be as practical as just simplifying things by going with the "max removal" figure which does, of course, involve prior history :think:



On a few of my vehicles, the uncleared areas appear to be quite *thinly* painted. I somehow suspect that the primer+basecoat on the rest of the vehicle is thicker.



IMO it'll all boil down to being able to establish baselines, and then being able to generalize despite all the different variables (including the significant differences in how thick the clear is on different vehicles); I dunno just how specific it'd be feasible to get when dealing with a large number of different vehicle.



And how to establish those baselines :nixweiss



Seems like both approaches have their pros/cons...not sure what the answer oughta be..
 
Accumulator said:
Yeah, it *is* all about having a sufficiently thick layer of clear.



But in practice I dunno if determining that would be as practical as just simplifying things by going with the "max removal" figure which does, of course, involve prior history :think:



On a few of my vehicles, the uncleared areas appear to be quite *thinly* painted. I somehow suspect that the primer+basecoat on the rest of the vehicle is thicker.



IMO it'll all boil down to being able to establish baselines, and then being able to generalize despite all the different variables (including the significant differences in how thick the clear is on different vehicles); I dunno just how specific it'd be feasible to get when dealing with a large number of different vehicle.



And how to establish those baselines :nixweiss



Seems like both approaches have their pros/cons...not sure what the answer oughta be..



Yes, exactly. Underneath the hood and around the trunk had much thinner readings, which is why I decided to go with the quarter panel numbers as the baseline. It appears that they painted the whole quarter panel using the paint thickness that they use on all of the exterior-exposed areas that are going to have a layer of clear applied.
 
SuperBee364- Ah, OK..you're giving this good thought all right :D



Heh heh, it's not as simple as some might think huh?



I don't think I'd be doing much correction on your thinner spots though, no matter *what* you end up deciding about the overall amount of clear ;)



Wonder what readings you'd get if you went over a (presumably unmolested) car just like yours...
 
Accumulator said:
SuperBee364- Ah, OK..you're giving this good thought all right :D



Heh heh, it's not as simple as some might think huh?



I don't think I'd be doing much correction on your thinner spots though, no matter *what* you end up deciding about the overall amount of clear ;)



Wonder what readings you'd get if you went over a (presumably unmolested) car just like yours...



I've been thinking about sneaking down to the dealership tonight after closing and grabbing a few readings... :bolt
 
SuperBee364 said:
I've been thinking about sneaking down to the dealership tonight after closing and grabbing a few readings... :bolt





Man Sup you are really trying hard not to spend that extra two grand. :D
 
SuperBee364 said:
I've been thinking about sneaking down to the dealership tonight after closing and grabbing a few readings... :bolt



Hell, you should be able to do it during the day. Just say you're shopping for a car with a thick clear coat.



Besides, I think they'd be more suspicious if you did it when they're closed, hehe.
 
Denzil said:
..Besides, I think they'd be more suspicious if you did it when they're closed, hehe.



And if they have security cameras (and actually look at the footage) you could be in for an interesting experience ;)
 
LOL, yeah, i could just imagine trying to explain that to the cop... "Well, officer, if you'd just take a sec to go to this web site..."



I'd go to the dealer I bought mine from, but they don't have any superbees left. I would like to get baseline readings from the exact color if I could.
 
I just got the High-Line today, thanks to finding it on eBay and later reading about it a bit in here. Most of the readings I got were anywhere from 4.3-8.0 mil or so on a variety of vehicles. Although, on a mid to late eighties Ford pickup I was constantly getting readings around 2.0-2.3. When I get readings like this, should I be worried when it comes to light swirl removal?...certainly compounding? Or should I mainly take notice to how much I remove before/after polishing--it seems like that would be hard to determine unless I did a lot of compounding? Especially when working with cars that I do not own, there has to be a point where I say "I shouldn't polish/compound this." This decision could be difficult without knowing what was previously done to the paint. Any advice?



After typing this I kind of feel like I asked some of the questions that have already been discussed here. Oh well, these are my initial thoughts. :o
 
shine- You're discovering first-hand how this stuff can be a little more confusing that one might expect.



Noting that I know *NOTHING* about how thick the factory paint is on Ford trucks (or anything else for that matter, really), I sure wouldn't want to do much correction on that one. IMO that's just not much paint no matter how you look at it.



Sometime I'll take some readings off my MPV- its paint was stupid-thin from the factory and I won't do any aggressive correction on it; I'm even careful about using the PC on it.
 
Back
Top