# Does ironx strip wax?



## Nick-W (Mar 14, 2011)

Quick question, I've just cleaned my car an used iron x, do I now need to polish an wax my car again? It was only done 2 weeks ago.

Cheers
Nick


----------



## Tim186 (Oct 18, 2009)

No, you wont need too, its wax safe. You will be just fine


----------



## Nick-W (Mar 14, 2011)

Cool thanks for the fast reply, I'll carry on doing the rest of the car now  suprising how bad my car is, it's picked up loads!


----------



## TOGWT (Oct 26, 2005)

Given that its formulated with neutralised acid salts that cause an exothermic reaction I'm suprised a wax would survive it, a ploymer sealent bonds with the paint surface and I would expect it to remain intact


----------



## billyp (Jul 24, 2010)

TOGWT said:


> Given that its formulated with neutralised acid salts that cause an exothermic reaction I'm suprised a wax would survive it, a ploymer sealent bonds with the paint surface and I would expect it to remain intact


although i don't have a clue what an exothermic reaction is i tend to agree that i would apply my lsp again and play safe :thumb:


----------



## GR33N (Apr 5, 2009)

My theory is, how can a product "pull" a contaminant from inside the paint without disturbing your LSP thats over the top of it.

So IMO id rewax after Iron-X :thumb:


----------



## HeavenlyDetail (Sep 22, 2006)

TOGWT said:


> Given that its formulated with neutralised acid salts that cause an exothermic reaction I'm suprised a wax would survive it, a ploymer sealent bonds with the paint surface and I would expect it to remain intact


Something ive always wondered and am surprised that it can have such an effect yet wax remain stabilised? Ive also wondered about the situation with acidic wheel cleaners and being mixed with water if you get a hydration reaction?


----------



## Subc (May 30, 2008)

This is why I have not bought IronX yet cant see how it can penetrate the "Protection" remove the rubbish and leave the "protection" intact ??


----------



## Cquartz (Jan 31, 2009)

Since many had questions about this , i decided to check/test it more deeply!

so , conclusion talking with our engineers , i can say that ironX and Soapgel will *affect wax layer by 50% *! 
now subc, about your remark, since the irons are all over the air , they stick on your car surface , on the wax as well, so ironx dissolves these on your car wax layer, what under the wax if its not too oily wax ofcourse it cant penetrate.

another thing we checked! which many wondered, 
*ironx can be left to dry on surface!!* there wont be any problem with that, 
only thing is *NOT to leave it to dry with sunshine!!!*
in shade place there wont be a problem to let it dry on surface.

i hope this info helps to clear things up.


----------



## McClane (Dec 9, 2010)

So more to the point, if you want *best efficacy *from these Iron dissolving products, you should use them during a wash where you will be stripping all LSP anyway (preferably *before* doing chemical iron decontamination) then claying/cleansing/polishing etc as seen fit, before before re-protecting.

It'd certainly be an expensive exercise if you're getting limited efficacy from these products since they're not fully getting to the paint due to existing wax/sealant - so their just decontaminating your wax (which will then be removed!)

I'd guess you'd want to use a chemical/detergent to strip wax/sealant sooner, rather than relying on clay to do this later, based on the current dogma on the heirachy of steps, (i.e. I've read of people use claying to remove the last vestiges of LSP; but I guess you'd really you'd want to strip wax/sealant chemically *before* the iron removal stage, then do the iron removal stage before claying, with a view to reduce the length/intensiveness of the claying process).

So would it be wise to do a pre-wash with V. strong APC then? Or rely on Tardis to do this initially as part of a robust proceedure?

I'd certainly testify that iron removal works (the complete obliteration of the rust spots on my OH's Pepper white mini as it turned purple was quite impressive to watch - using iron X on an unprotected car in this case).

But I think it would be useful to nail down some final guidance on when/how is the best way to use these products, based on the context that many DW members cars will be wearing a fairly good layer of protection at most times, even before a large detail, and the claying process (often done *after* Iron-X or equivalant) might be relied on to fully remove that LSP, and the fact that any existing LSP in between these stages could be inteferring with Iron dissolving efficacy - depending on how strong the initial wash/pre-wash was.


----------



## Chufster (Nov 21, 2010)

Good point well made Mclaine. 

I guess that to maximise the efficiency of Iron-X, you would need a wax stripping stage that wasn't reliant on clay. Either as part of the wash or pre-wash, or relying on tardis. Although I don't know how many people put tardis on the roof!

I'm guessing that a strong apc pre-wash would be the preferred method. Using either an apc, TFR or strong citrus pre-wash. Then a wash using a non wax including shampoo, otherwise the wax in the shampoo could coat some of the filings, preventing Iron-X from getting to them.


----------



## McClane (Dec 9, 2010)

Chufster said:


> Good point well made Mclaine.
> 
> I guess that to maximise the efficiency of Iron-X, you would need a wax stripping stage that wasn't reliant on clay. Either as part of the wash or pre-wash, or relying on tardis. Although I don't know how many people put tardis on the roof!
> 
> I'm guessing that a strong apc pre-wash would be the preferred method. Using either an apc, TFR or strong citrus pre-wash. Then a wash using a non wax including shampoo, otherwise the wax in the shampoo could coat some of the filings, preventing Iron-X from getting to them.


Indeed, I've picked up that Rob @ Gleam Machine seems to advocate a strong APC pre-wash, since he'll be correcting/re-protecting anyway.

As with many of these products, I guess that main thing is right place, right time, and context.


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

I use my iron x and tardis after the first snow foam and first hand wash.

I then snow foam and wash again...

But saying that, I don't use these products on my (protected) cars, unless I am looking to renew the LSP....

hmmmm...

:thumb:


----------



## TOGWT (Oct 26, 2005)

billyp said:


> although i don't have a clue what an exothermic reaction is i tend to agree that i would apply my lsp again and play safe :thumb:


Exothermic reaction _[: is a chemical reaction that releases energy in the form of light or heat]_ this causes the paint pores surrounding the iron particles to expand

*Post Decontamination Wash*

A post detailer's clay and / or decontamination wash with a diluted solution 3:1 of _P21S® Total Auto Wash_ that contains surfactant detergents and d-limonene (citrus oil) a biodegradable cleaner that can also be used for the removal of tree sap, bug spatters, bird droppings, engine degreaser, wheel wells, rocker panels, floor mats and other grimy areas, this safe solvent cleaner will ensure a there are no surface contaminants or use _C.Quartz IronX Soap Gel_


----------



## quattrogmbh (May 15, 2007)

Cquartz said:


> so , conclusion talking with our engineers , i can say that ironX and Soapgel will *affect wax layer by 50% *!
> .


So after 2 uses then (The normal amount to remove majority contaminants) the wax will be totally stripped.


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

quattrogmbh said:


> So after 2 uses then (The normal amount to remove majority contaminants) the wax will be totally stripped.


Well that is the interesting bit...

If it only removes 50%, then it _should be 50% each time you use it...

So the 2nd time, it will be removing 50% of the 50% left over from the first time! :lol:

Not sure how this is going to work to be honest, because that means that there will always be LSP on the car, as it only ever removes 50% of what is there 

:thumb:_


----------



## Pedro.Malheiro (Mar 18, 2011)

so lest say that i clean + decontaminate + polish + seal de rim, after that i can use iron x to decontaminate only what is up of the sealant, and have a probability to remove 50% of the sealant? or it will not have the sealant?

best regars


----------



## McClane (Dec 9, 2010)

The Cueball said:


> Well that is the interesting bit...
> 
> If it only removes 50%, then it _should be 50% each time you use it...
> 
> ...


_

After 5 "half-lives", an amount present would be negligable... if it did work like that.

Probably doesn't though, since this is more chemical erosion that natural decay._


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

McClane said:


> After 5 "half-lives", an amount present would be negligable... if it did work like that.
> 
> Probably doesn't though, since this is more chemical erosion that natural decay.


Plus there is hardly anything there to begin with! :lol:

I think i'll stick to what I do at the moment, and worry about something else!

:thumb:


----------



## McClane (Dec 9, 2010)

The Cueball said:


> Plus there is hardly anything there to begin with! :lol:
> 
> I think i'll stick to what I do at the moment, and worry about something else!
> 
> :thumb:


Good call Cuey, this is making my head hurt! :thumb:.

Lots of different potential scenarios where people want to use it. Some want use it but protect their wax, some, like me, would't want to waste an expensive product because of leaving wax on inappropriately, which could be re-applied cheaply

I guess it's appropriate place has yet to be fully established/embedded.


----------



## Wozza (Mar 3, 2007)

Cquartz said:


> Since many had questions about this , i decided to check/test it more deeply!
> 
> so , conclusion talking with our engineers , i can say that ironX and Soapgel will *affect wax layer by 50% *!
> now subc, about your remark, since the irons are all over the air , they stick on your car surface , on the wax as well, so ironx dissolves these on your car wax layer, what under the wax if its not too oily wax ofcourse it cant penetrate.
> ...


IMO saying that IronX will remove 50% of your LSP is a very bold statement. Every LSP has very differing durability and ability to withstand certain conditions (Compare Colly 915 to P21S for example) so to say that 50% of it will be removed (which is quite an accurate figure) is a complete and utter guess IMO. Perhaps saying that "it will have an or some effect on the LSP" would be a better statement.

A question I have also pondered over is what effect Iron X has on bare steel / iron components on the car, items such as brake discs, brake pads (as they genrally contain lots of iron).


----------



## McClane (Dec 9, 2010)

Wozza said:


> IMO saying that IronX will remove 50% of your LSP is a very bold statement. Every LSP has very differing durability and ability to withstand certain conditions (Compare Colly 915 to P21S for example) so to say that 50% of it will be removed (which is quite an accurate figure) is a complete and utter guess IMO. Perhaps saying that "it will have an or some effect on the LSP" would be a better statement.
> 
> A question I have also pondered over is what effect Iron X has on bare steel / iron components on the car, items such as brake discs, brake pads (as they genrally contain lots of iron).


Interesting point re: the latter. Haven't seen the discs themselves turn purple though. Whether it's to do with surface area, or actually rust/oxidation is needed as a catalyst (very little found on freshly used brakes, plenty found in brake dust/fallout) - good question for any chemists out there.

I'm guessing for the former, that my take home message from this thread so far would be that it isn't ideal to use IronX (or any alternatives) on a waxed/sealed car. The wax/sealant may be diminished, and the ability of the iron decontaminator to effectively reach all actual surfaces may also be diminished. Lose-lose scenario in my book.

That is not to say that the products are not *VERY* valuable when applied in the optimal way.

Happy to be corrected anyone.


----------



## Subc (May 30, 2008)

Cquartz said:


> Since many had questions about this , i decided to check/test it more deeply!
> 
> so , conclusion talking with our engineers , i can say that ironX and Soapgel will *affect wax layer by 50% *!
> now subc, about your remark, since the irons are all over the air , they stick on your car surface , on the wax as well, so ironx dissolves these on your car wax layer, what under the wax if its not too oily wax ofcourse it cant penetrate.
> ...


When I try it I will clay the car and start from scratch to get the full benefit


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

McClane said:


> my take home message from this thread so far would be that it isn't ideal to use IronX (or any alternatives) on a waxed/sealed car. The wax/sealant may be diminished, and the ability of the iron decontaminator to effectively reach all actual surfaces may also be diminished. Lose-lose scenario in my book.
> 
> That is not to say that the products are not *VERY* valuable when applied in the optimal way.
> 
> Happy to be corrected anyone.


I look at iron x in the same way as other "specialist" stages in my detailing routine - that is out with a normal car clean and so, as with these stages (clay, tardis, polish, etc) I have two thoughts:

1)
These are not carried out at every wash, maybe one a month at most, to once a year depending on several variables....

2)
As with the other stages mentioned above, iron x will have a deconstructive effect on any LSP on the vehicle and thought should be given to that when deciding to use it in the routine.

:thumb:


----------



## McClane (Dec 9, 2010)

The Cueball said:


> I look at iron x in the same way as other "specialist" stages in my detailing routine - that is out with a normal car clean and so, as with these stages (clay, tardis, polish, etc) I have two thoughts:
> 
> 1)
> These are not carried out at every wash, maybe one a month at most, to once a year depending on several variables....
> ...


Spot on Cuey, and sounds like complete common sense really.

I think I was approaching it from the direction that these products are fairly _en vogue_ at the moment, and people want to give them a try... therefore it seems sensible to be explicit about the how, why and when.

This seems fairly obvious, but the whole pH neutral, wax safe claims element is throwing a bit of confusion out there. Hence the origin of this thread and some of the replies.

I think it should be stated clearly that for the avoidance of doubt, this is a specialist decontamination stage, that you'd do at any "big wash" (as I call them ), and not only that, if you have a "durable, detergent proof LSP" on, you might want to make a point of truly clearing it before starting on Iron X or similar.

Based on the fact that this might previously have been wholly removed by claying, but the current thought process is fairly reflective of:

1. Pre-wash/foam/TFR 
2. Wash 
3. Rinse 
4. Tardis, or similar 
5. Iron X, or similar 
6. Clay

You'd want to make sure 1-4 has cleared any pre-existing LSP, if present. Since it sounds like it could affect efficacy of stage 5.

Much less of an issue on un-protected cars, who might be more in need of treatment anyway. If it's a hobbyist doing their own well protected P&G though... it's worth bearing in mind making sure step 1 is fairly strong I guess.


----------



## big ben (Aug 25, 2009)

any chemical or surfactant etc will remove wax, and touching of the paint will be removing the wax in some way or another...

im not sure why you would use iron-x or Wolfs BD on paint and hope there is sufficent protection left behind. It is used on paint in the _decontamination_ process, which most will also use tar remover, and finally clay.. After that you wont have much wax left at all!

its best used on wheels in the same way as paint - clean, decontaminate, then protect! that way you can clean your wheels and paint with a shampoo easily. Then in X amount of months you start again and go through the decontamination process

if you have a fresh layer of wax on the car, why are you going near it with iron-x or any other chemicals

edit; the smell alone probably removes over 50% of the wax :lol: and i agree with Wozza, sounds liek Avi has made that sum up or someone else has told him a complete guess


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

big ben said:


> any chemical or surfactant etc will remove wax, and touching of the paint will be removing the wax in some way or another...
> 
> im not sure why you would use iron-x or Wolfs BD on paint and hope there is sufficent protection left behind. It is used on paint in the _decontamination_ process, which most will also use tar remover, and finally clay.. After that you wont have much wax left at all!
> 
> ...


I agree, maybe I'm wrong, but I have never thought of iron x as an "every wash" kind of product....

:thumb:


----------



## amiller (Jan 1, 2009)

The Cueball said:


> I agree, maybe I'm wrong, but I have never thought of iron x as an "every wash" kind of product....
> 
> :thumb:


Funny that, because the tap water in East Kilbride smells similar. :doublesho


----------



## big ben (Aug 25, 2009)

The Cueball said:


> I agree, maybe I'm wrong, but I have never thought of iron x as an "every wash" kind of product....
> 
> :thumb:


your definately not wrong mate! maybe the soap gel is suppose to be a more maintenance product, but even using something as mild as Dodo BTBM shampoo on a wax/sealant strips the wax to some extent, so i wouldnt use it


----------



## McClane (Dec 9, 2010)

The Cueball said:


> I agree, maybe I'm wrong, but I have never thought of iron x as an "every wash" kind of product....
> 
> :thumb:


Agree x 2 :thumb:

It's this bit that's got me concerned about "optimal" use I've been banging on about (I'll stop now :thumb.



Cquartz said:


> now subc, about your remark, since the irons are all over the air , they stick on your car surface , on the wax as well, so ironx dissolves these on your car wax layer, *what under the wax if its not too oily wax ofcourse it cant penetrate.*


I'm taking that to mean if you've not fully cleared the wax/sealent off a well protected car by "stage 5" I mentioned above. you might be wasting your time a little, or at least reducing the effect of the results. And the whole point of going to lots of effort for a big overhaul wash is results!


----------



## big ben (Aug 25, 2009)

McClane said:


> I'm taking that to mean if you've not cleared the wax/sealent off fully by "stage 5" I mentioned above. you might be wasting your time a little, or at least reducing the effect of the results.


what you also have to remember is, we all managed without these products before, so its not do or die. They help a lot in what they do though, and every little helps...

maybe after claying, give the car an IPA wipedown, and then reapply Iron-x, see how much (if any) contamination comes off, that would prove it has missed bits then

but i like your thinking :thumb:


----------



## big ben (Aug 25, 2009)

amiller said:


> Funny that, because the tap water in East Kilbride smells similar. :doublesho


:lol:

and yes, i thanked you on purpose :lol:


----------



## McClane (Dec 9, 2010)

big ben said:


> what you also have to remember is, we all managed without these products before, so its not do or die. They help a lot in what they do though, and every little helps...


Indeed ben, I think it's just that if I've paid £15 quid for this new, like you say, "extra" step, I want my damn moneys worth (at £4-7 per pop, per car)! :lol:

That'd be a good test to do on a waxed vs unwaxed car. I think if the manafacturers said "sorry, yes it oblerates your wax", I'd feel happier knowing it was going to work regardles :lol:


----------



## big ben (Aug 25, 2009)

yeah thats true, i think there are too many products out there that even the suppliers/chemists have no idea of the effects on products such as waxes... 

it gets packaged and sold quickly, and its usually down to the enthusiasts to play around and find out how to get the best from a product!

i just use wolfs BD now, just as good but takes a little longer to dissolve the iron... smells better to, bit minty now :lol:


----------



## Mr Yellow (Apr 30, 2009)

TOGWT said:


> Given that its formulated with neutralised acid salts that cause an exothermic reaction I'm suprised a wax would survive it, a ploymer sealent bonds with the paint surface and I would expect it to remain intact


The quantum entanglement factor for the delta-3 bond on most waxes is such that neutralised acid salts (which, as you realise, are dominantly gamma-2 in their entropy balance) should have no effect. Just consider how the symmetry of the bent molecules comes into play - there is really no good reason for wax stripping.


----------



## McClane (Dec 9, 2010)

x12yhp, given your chemistry background, any comment as to my amateur speculation in post #22? :thumb:


----------



## Mr Yellow (Apr 30, 2009)

McClane said:


> x12yhp, given your chemistry background, any comment as to my amateur speculation in post #22? :thumb:


I should point out that my previous post was a total spoof... I am getting a bit tired of reading BS from others so thought I would add something comparable of my own.

As for post 22...

I don't want to comment too much on the function of these products. I don't have access to any good material at home but I suspect that the oxidation state of the iron is important. Also the neutral pH plays a role. Basically I suspect that the chemistry of the system is such that the products are either reacting predominantly with one of the oxidation states or that the colour of the complexes differ for the different states (I know the latter would be true). If I was to put my money on something I would say that they products really are not reacting with the discs. I think that the iron in there is in the wrong state and these products are not designed to work with them.


----------



## The Doctor (Sep 11, 2007)

x12yhp said:


> The quantum entanglement factor for the delta-3 bond on most waxes is such that neutralised acid salts (which, as you realise, are dominantly gamma-2 in their entropy balance) should have no effect. Just consider how the symmetry of the bent molecules comes into play - there is really no good reason for wax stripping.


Have you been drinking? :lol:

Sorry should of read the rest of the thread!!!


----------



## The Doctor (Sep 11, 2007)

x12yhp said:


> I should point out that my previous post was a total spoof... I am getting a bit tired of reading BS from others so thought I would add something comparable of my own.


You forgot to write it in blue!!


----------



## Mr Yellow (Apr 30, 2009)

The Doctor said:


> Have you been drinking? :lol:
> 
> Sorry should of read the rest of the thread!!!


When I read...

"Given that its formulated with neutralised acid salts that cause an exothermic reaction I'm suprised a wax would survive it, a ploymer sealent bonds with the paint surface and I would expect it to remain intact"

I had to post something. I have read this sort of drivel elsewhere. It doesn't even make sense in English! Formulated with neutralised acid salts that cause an exothermic reaction... an exothermic reaction with what?! What makes it exothermic?! Why is the "neutralised acid salts" important?! If it is a reaction, then what the hell difference does it make whether the wax/sealant is bonded to the surface or not!?

Sorry but I have seen comments like that from students who sneaked a peak at a friend's assignment and then splurged as many words as possible onto their own work, with absolutely no comprehension at all.


----------



## The Doctor (Sep 11, 2007)

x12yhp said:


> When I read...
> 
> "Given that its formulated with neutralised acid salts that cause an exothermic reaction I'm suprised a wax would survive it, a ploymer sealent bonds with the paint surface and I would expect it to remain intact"
> 
> ...


I know what you mean. Over complicating matters to the extreme until it doesnt even make any sense!!


----------



## Super G (Jan 21, 2010)

a very simple experiment could be set up with light coloured car with obvious rust contamination. deliberatly apply coats of wax over top of rust particles and then try iron X. if rust does not go purple and dissolve wax is providing a a barrier to the iron X. can follow this up with a beading test and will also tell if wax has been compromised.


----------



## The Doctor (Sep 11, 2007)

Super G said:


> a very simple experiment could be set up with light coloured car with obvious rust contamination. deliberatly apply coats of wax over top of rust particles and then try iron X. if rust does not go purple and dissolve wax is providing a a barrier to the iron X. can follow this up with a beading test and will also tell if wax has been compromised.


Good idea but it wouldn't work. The iron particles would be exposed as the layer of wax is so thin.

Sent from my HTC using Tapatalk


----------



## McClane (Dec 9, 2010)

x12yhp said:


> The quantum entanglement factor for the delta-3 bond on most waxes is such that neutralised acid salts (which, as you realise, are dominantly gamma-2 in their entropy balance) should have no effect. Just consider how the symmetry of the bent molecules comes into play - there is really no good reason for wax stripping.





x12yhp said:


> I should point out that my previous post was a total spoof... I am getting a bit tired of reading BS from others so thought I would add something comparable of my own.


Fair enough. Having done a-level chemistry and hated it with a passion, I think I switch off at the sound of jargon. :lol:

I'm always wary of it in a scenario like this since it's basically there to confuse, and without further investigation I'm neither qualified to support or refute it, so generally can't be bothered. That goes for your BS post too. But i figured it's so in-penetrable to a fellow English speaker only a chemist could've written it! :lol: :thumb:



> As for post 22...
> 
> I don't want to comment too much on the function of these products. I don't have access to any good material at home but I suspect that the oxidation state of the iron is important. Also the neutral pH plays a role. Basically I suspect that the chemistry of the system is such that the products are either reacting predominantly with one of the oxidation states or that the colour of the complexes differ for the different states (I know the latter would be true). If I was to put my money on something I would say that they products really are not reacting with the discs. I think that the iron in there is in the wrong state and these products are not designed to work with them.


Sounds fairly reasonable! :thumb: And of course, this need'nt be a naive question: 


McClane said:


> x12yhp, given your chemistry background, any comment as to my amateur speculation in post #22? :thumb:


----------



## Mr Yellow (Apr 30, 2009)

McClane said:


> Fair enough. Having done a-level chemistry and hated it with a passion, I think I switch off at the sound of jargon. :lol:
> 
> I'm always wary of it in a scenario like this since it's basically there to confuse, and without further investigation I'm neither qualified to support or refute it, so generally can't be bothered. That goes for your BS post too. But i figured it's so in-penetrable to a fellow English speaker only a chemist could've written it! :lol: :thumb:


That is the problem with science and particularly the internet - it is very hard to know who to believe. Often, those who know a bit are the worst because they grasp onto something and believe they are right. They are believed because they _should_ know and non-chemists (like you say) have no real grounds to refute it.

Of course you have no real reason to believe me either I suppose!!


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

x12yhp said:


> Of course you have no real reason to believe me either I suppose!!


I think you talk b0ll0cks, if that helps any! (just to even things up!) 

:lol::lol::lol:

:thumb:


----------



## McClane (Dec 9, 2010)

x12yhp said:


> Of course you have no real reason to believe me either I suppose!!


Not after that **** you put before anyway :lol:

Its certainly a skill interpretting internet "evidence"... since now everybody is given the right to "publish".

I generally don't take anything as fact (well, at least checked) unless it's a from a peer reviewed journal, institution website (i.e. Scientific body), or a similar trusted source with a large repuation at stake - or indeed, I can test it from my own observations.

There's plenty of anecdote, conjecture, musing, and even more forum BS. Since joining here I like to think I've contributed heavily to the latter . Anecodote, conjecture and musing have been happening for 1000's of years though, whether it's philosophy or pub talk, it's just so much of it's "published" instantly now . As long as we all recognise the difference.

This is very true, though derived from physics, I though Fenyman summed it up perfectly!:


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2011)

The problem is people arnt asking the right questions and the people supplying the chemicals arnt able to answer them even when you do.


----------



## McClane (Dec 9, 2010)

matt1263 said:


> The problem is people arnt asking the right questions and the people supplying the chemicals arnt able to answer them even when you do.


"Lack of regulation" summed up in one sentence. :thumb:


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2011)

Lack of Knowledge is a better.

Anyway, off to do an enhancement :thumb:


----------



## McClane (Dec 9, 2010)

matt1263 said:


> Lack of Knowledge is a better.
> 
> Anyway, off to do an enhancement :thumb:


Oh I agree with you, in that I meant that's what a good regulator should do (in the lack of anyone else), have the knowledge to ask the right questions, interpret the answers from a position of clarity and provide an informed judgement based on their knowledge for the better of everyone...

Fairly tangential point from me however, and the words "theory" and "practice" spring to mind :wall:.

Enjoy your enhancement anyway Matt. :thumb:


----------



## TOGWT (Oct 26, 2005)

x12yhp said:


> When I read...
> 
> "Given that its formulated with neutralised acid salts that cause an exothermic reaction I'm suprised a wax would survive it, a ploymer sealent bonds with the paint surface and I would expect it to remain intact"
> 
> ...


I guess I don't have your backround in chemistry so I just make it up as I go along


----------



## Mr Yellow (Apr 30, 2009)

matt1263 said:


> The problem is people arnt asking the right questions and the people supplying the chemicals arnt able to answer them even when you do.


Yeah, you are right on both counts. Of course there is often little point in the supplier being right because 95% of the time, a private customer won't listen because they will have their own, preconceived notions!


----------



## beko1987 (Jul 25, 2010)

Tim186 said:


> No, you wont need too, its wax safe. You will be just fine


hehehe...


----------

