# Thickness of wax layers?



## FinstP

Does anyone know of any (scientific) measurements of the wax thickness put down in one or more applications? I have long suspected that the thickness is much less than one micron and am sorely tempted to make the measurements. I have access to equipment that can measure to less than one thousandth of a micron (a nanometre).
Of course it would be difficult to measure on a standard car panel so I will have to use something that is extremely smooth but too unlike a clear coat. I propose to use silicon wafers, which are the flattest, smoothest surfaces readily available. These always have a thin layer of oxide (silica in other words) on top, which we would usually measure as being 2-> 3 nm thick. Any objections to this, on the grounds of not providing a fair test, before I start?


NOTE (added 30th July) :- Results are shown in later threads


----------



## agpatel

It is around the sub-micron range from what I have read around and talking about.


----------



## Bero

Great idea, the real benifit of this would be to see how many layers of wax you can put down before there is no increase in thickness with the addition of more layers.

Then comparing the layering ability of solvent heavy waxes and less solvent heavy waxes etc etc.....i'm sure we would be able to dream up no end of tests!!

I'm already preparing stickers for all my LSP's so i can write on the 'optimal/maximum' number of layers. :lol:


----------



## akimel

Bero said:


> Great idea, the real benifit of this would be to see how many layers of wax you can put down before there is no increase in thickness with the addition of more layers.


And after it has been determined how many layers of carnauba wax can be applied before there is no increase, then the test needs to be repeated for a synthetic sealant.

I am really looking forward to the results!

Al


----------



## Bigpikle

Go for it :thumb:

nobody has ever managed to measure any film build from layers of wax, properly applied, from what I have read....

I'd like to see your results. My only concern would be whether you can apply wax and buff it properly on this wafer you describe? It would be great to see what actually happens, and please use more than 1 wax, as their chemistry is so different that I suspect some waxes will layer and some wont (or it will be an almost negligible film build).


----------



## Charley Farley

OOI - how would you calc depth? Paint reading first, then with a coat of wax, is any equipment capable of measuring accurately? What of two coats? Same surely applies, by whom and with what?

As it is applied in two ways (usually, unless I missed an alternative) by hand or applicator, whose hand, what size, how deep dibbing into CW?? Surely no such test would ever be worth the paper it was written on? IMO, and that is all it is, prepare the surface, end up with a coat of wax applied correctly, buffed, left or not, test to measure longevity. Then same again, two coats, and same test? Would ambient conditions be the same though, frequency of rain, road conditions??? Still not really conclusive is it?

A pro or highly experienced detailer could obtain result A on ABC car in ABC conditions, it does not mean to say I could come close unless I was able to duplicate the conditions therefore a 'hands-on' testing of such a product (IMO) is only ever likely to be slightly indicative, and a scientific test....? Well, again (IMO) about as much use as a one legged man in an ar5e kicking contest.

With respect.


----------



## FinstP

Can the wax layer be measured? Yes.

How? Well, rather than me take up a lot of space here - just have a look at "ellipsometry" on wikipedia. This can measure the thickness (and the optical properties) of layers that have thicknesses of less than 1 nanometre, up to several microns. I use this and other optical methods.

Is it worth doing - I think so, and my colleagues would certainly believe the results. The method of application can obviously be varied to leave behind a well-defined layer, but the point of this test would be to see how much wax is left when applied in the "normal" way by cloths. I think I can do this part of detailing as well as anybody else, having looked after two cars for more years than I care to mention.

Is a silicon wafer the best surface to coat? Well it's the flattest, cleanest, smoothest thing you are ever likely to see. The wax won't actually "see" silicon because a silicon surface immediately forms a thin oxide layer on exposure to air. This grows to around several nanometres and pretty much stops unless heated. So chemically the wax will be adhering to silica.

I can also try coating the silicon with clearcoat, that slightly complicates analysis, but we measure lacquers and other coatings all the time and it is possible.


----------



## PWOOD

sounds like you know what your talking about. Please let us know what you find:thumb:


----------



## Bigpikle

FinstP said:


> Can the wax layer be measured? Yes.
> 
> How? Well, rather than me take up a lot of space here - just have a look at "ellipsometry" on wikipedia. This can measure the thickness (and the optical properties) of layers that have thicknesses of less than 1 nanometre, up to several microns. I use this and other optical methods.
> 
> Is it worth doing - I think so, and my colleagues would certainly believe the results. The method of application can obviously be varied to leave behind a well-defined layer, but the point of this test would be to see how much wax is left when applied in the "normal" way by cloths. I think I can do this part of detailing as well as anybody else, having looked after two cars for more years than I care to mention.
> 
> Is a silicon wafer the best surface to coat? Well it's the flattest, cleanest, smoothest thing you are ever likely to see. The wax won't actually "see" silicon because a silicon surface immediately forms a thin oxide layer on exposure to air. This grows to around several nanometres and pretty much stops unless heated. So chemically the wax will be adhering to silica.
> 
> I can also try coating the silicon with clearcoat, that slightly complicates analysis, but we measure lacquers and other coatings all the time and it is possible.


go for it and please document your process for the scientists here. I have always wondered by wax manufacturers have never published any findings on this topic? I know technology exists, so why have we never seen results? I suspect its because they wont be good (from a wax manufacturers point of view) and its in the interests of manufacturers to have us layer products and use more stuff 

Please use some quality waxes and some stuff that is regarded as very solvent heavy eg Colli waxes, FK1000 etc. I'd also love to see a water based spray wax product tested to see how that compares to paste products.

I'm looking forward to seeing your results :thumb:


----------



## robsonj

go for it mate , no doubt the waxmeister Dave kg will be very interested along with myself(not that i'm a scientist lol)


----------



## Dave KG

He will of course be very interested 

I look forward to seeing your results here, and reading your conclusions and thoughts


----------



## Edstrung

This thread shows promise... a scientific look at wax. The water beading videos are nice, but even they are open to comment about differing angles and pressure of the water.

I suppose you might be after some panel pots for samples?


----------



## Lowiepete

Well, for a theoretical exercise, this sounds like a _lot_ of work. How many
here can even envisage what a micron is, let alone nano sizes? If we put this
into relative terms, using a measurement that we can envisage, then I still
wonder if the tests will mean very much to anyone other than a scientist.

Let's imagine (in relative terms) that one layer of FK1000p is one millimetre 
thick and a second coat is only 1.5mm. With the first coat, there's probably 
going to be some sort of chemical reaction with the paint. Applying the second
coat, is it safe to assume that a different chemical reaction may occur? 
Could it be that the second reaction actually strengthens the first coat 
protection as a result? Not by the thickness, but by the 2nd chemical reaction.

When you divide these relative measurements by 1000 or greater is it still
going to be possible to test whether or not there was any strengthening of
that first coat? If not, then all that work imo gives us figures that are
almost meaningless to other than a tiny minority of people. I guess that this
might partly answer BigPikle's question about why these figures aren't even
used by the most aggressive of marketing departments.

Having said all that, I'd be interested in seeing the figures if only to be
able to give an answer if such an arcane question came up in a pub quiz. 

Regards,
Steve


----------



## FinstP

I can also measure Gloss and the contact angle/surface energy if people are interested.
As far as waxes go, at the moment I only have Collinite Marque D'Elegance because that's what I use myself. If anyone wants particular products tested then I'm sure that I could spare a few more silicon wafers - maybe make it into a mini project for one of the PhD students!


----------



## PJS

Does your equipment go low enough? From my understanding, you're talking about 1/50th of a nanometre, or 20 Ångstroms typically.


----------



## StormVR6

Hmm, it's interesting but I find it hard to agree that the time and effort taken is actually worth it. You say you're undertaking the test to find out how much wax is left after application but does it matter?

I'm not sure how other people here gauge their finish, but personally, if water is beading I don't wax, if it's not, I do. How does knowing the depth of my wax help me?


----------



## Bigpikle

it might help to know if applying 2+ layers leaves any more wax on the surface than 1 layer...

So many people like putting on loads of layers of products, but what if they dont actually build up and simply remove each other? I'd like to know that...


----------



## Dodo Factory

It would be great to measure precisely. We reckon wax coatings are no more than a micron judging from filling abilities etc, so potentially less. There are also tests we have conducted with particles of a known size (about 4 microns) which prove that the residual wax layer is less than this. But we don't know precisely, perhaps because our chemists have never felt it necessary to find out. But could well be sub micron, and would be great to maybe even see a wax layer under an electron microscope  The Uni of Reading has potentially agreed to help us with some of these scientific research things, so we may do some more digging when we have time.


----------



## Guest

As a slight aside, what are the adhesive properties of a wax/sealant like? I'm just wondering how much mechanical effort is required to remove the film of cured wax/sealant from the surface it is appled to?


----------



## Mugwump

PJS said:


> Does your equipment go low enough? From my understanding, you're talking about 1/50th of a nanometre, or 20 Ångstroms typically.


1 nanometre = 10 Ångstrom 
1 micron = 1000 nanometres

As the method described can potentially measure down to a few Ångstrom, I would expect it is the best chance of measuring the layers we are likely to get. Well worth doing as the OP has access to it - I imagine if you were to commission such work from a suitable organisation, it would cost more than we all spend on detailing


----------



## FinstP

PJS said:


> Does your equipment go low enough? From my understanding, you're talking about 1/50th of a nanometre, or 20 Ångstroms typically.


Yes, as Mugwump implies 20 Ångstroms is 2 nanometres and we can measure that easily. If it was as low as that I would be surprised - not more than a few wax molecules thick.


----------



## FinstP

Dodo Factory said:


> It would be great to measure precisely. We reckon wax coatings are no more than a micron judging from filling abilities etc, so potentially less. There are also tests we have conducted with particles of a known size (about 4 microns) which prove that the residual wax layer is less than this. But we don't know precisely, perhaps because our chemists have never felt it necessary to find out. But could well be sub micron, and would be great to maybe even see a wax layer under an electron microscope  The Uni of Reading has potentially agreed to help us with some of these scientific research things, so we may do some more digging when we have time.


I also have an electron microscope!


----------



## akimel

These tests could perhaps resolve once and for all the question that has bedevilled all of us--namely, is it really possible to layer either carnauba waxes or synthetic sealants? If yes, how many coats may one apply until one reaches maximum, or is there a maximum? I am looking forward to the results!


----------



## FinstP

Phisp said:


> As a slight aside, what are the adhesive properties of a wax/sealant like? I'm just wondering how much mechanical effort is required to remove the film of cured wax/sealant from the surface it is appled to?


That's one of the interesting questions that we would then be able to look at.

Another thing is that I'm pretty sure that if you don't leave the wax area to dry and haze over (as the manufacturers recommend), but instead keep buffing with the original cloth, then you remove pretty much all of the layer you've just tried to apply.


----------



## FinstP

akimel said:


> These tests could perhaps resolve once and for all the question that has bedevilled all of us--namely, is it really possible to layer either carnauba waxes or synthetic sealants? If yes, how many coats may one apply until one reaches maximum, or is there a maximum? I am looking forward to the results!


This is another interesting question that makes the exercise worth while.

In reply to some of the other, more negative posts, some people are just naturally curious and I suppose that's what turns them on to science.


----------



## Dodo Factory

FinstP said:


> I also have an electron microscope!


Top man.... when are we popping over to have a play?


----------



## nortonski

FinstP said:


> I can also measure Gloss and the contact angle/surface energy if people are interested.
> As far as waxes go, at the moment I only have Collinite Marque D'Elegance because that's what I use myself. If anyone wants particular products tested then I'm sure that I could spare a few more silicon wafers - maybe make it into a mini project for one of the PhD students!


I'll happily provide a lil Zym0l Vintage for the test :thumb:

If it's a go'er drop me a pm with the address details


----------



## Mirror Finish Details

Good post, looking forward to the results!!!!


----------



## PJS

FinstP said:


> Yes, as Mugwump implies 20 Ångstroms is 2 nanometres and we can measure that easily. If it was as low as that I would be surprised - not more than a few wax molecules thick.


Sorry....getting my scales mixed up there - thanks to Mugwump for pointing it out.
As for the thickness mentioned, I know Bilt Hamber says this is the thickness of the film formed by Auto-balm, and I'd be surprised if waxes or other sealants were dramatically different.
Will be keeping an eye out on development/results.


----------



## chillly

one of the best threads ive seen. do we all want you to do it. yes yes yes yes yes. 
if you need some different waxes to use im sure we would all put some in an air tight bag and post it to you. good luck and cant wait.


----------



## FinstP

*Results!*

Wax Thickness Test Results

Well here are some results of wax thickness as measured by reflectometry and ellipsometry.

The units given below are in nanometres, abbreviated as nm. For reference, 20 nm is 1/50th of a micron. 
One micron is roughly 1/80th of the thickness of a human hair (hair thickness depends on hair colour/ethnic origin etc).

(Some technical details for the scientifically minded:- The methods used are capable of measuring to sub nanometre precision on clean silicon wafers. 
However, the accuracy of the methods depend to some extent on the refractive index of the materials being measured.
Here we have used computer fitting to derive the thickness and refractive index dispersion simultaneously. 
The value of refractive index obtained was 1.413 (at 632.8 nm) and the value quoted in the literature for pure Carnauba wax is 1.454 (wavelength not quoted).
This gives some confidence that the values of thickness are correct. 
The clean silicon wafers were measured beforehand and thicknesses of 2 to 3 nanometres of silicon dioxide were shown to be present (as expected). 
Silicon dioxide has a very similar refractive index to the wax and so cannot be distinguished from wax in the final analysis.)

The first tests reported below used Collinite no 915 applied to clean 6 inch diameter silicon wafers using a damp microfibre cloth (as manufacturer's recommendations).
Four silicon wafers were used, with slight variations on the waxing technique as given below.

Wafer 1. Wax was applied thinly with damp cloth, left for 5 minutes to haze over and then buffed off with clean microfibre cloth. No great effort was applied.
Measured Thickness = 22.7 nm (in centre of wafer)

Wafer 2. Wax was applied thickly with damp cloth, left for 15 minutes to haze over and then buffed off with clean microfibre cloth. This layer required a fair degree of effort to remove compared to wafer 1.
Measured Thickness = 20.6 nm (in centre of wafer)

Wafer 3. Wax was applied thinly with damp cloth, left for 15 minutes to haze over and then buffed off with clean microfibre cloth. No great effort was necessary.
Measured Thickness = 15.9 nm (in centre of wafer)

Wafer 4. Wax was applied thinly with damp cloth and buffing with clean microfibre started immediately.
= Measured Thickness = 16.9 nm (in centre of wafer).

The actual wax thicknesses will be 2 to 3 nm less because of the native oxide layer as explained above. (I do have the exact values)

One more thing before I finish for today. Our equipment can also measure the thickness distribution over the 6 inch wafer and a thickness map for wafer 4 is shown in the picture below. 
Dark blue in the picture corresponds to thickest and light blue to thinnest.
In case it is not clear, the thinnest value was 15.05 nm and the thickest value was 20.26 nm (standard deviation is 1.25 nm and thickness uniformity is +-14.9%)

My first reactions are that I am surprised how little variation there is between wafers or over the surface of wafer 4. A standard deviation of 1.25 nm for a layer applied by a damp cloth is pretty impressive!
The actual thicknesses of 15 to 20 nm (or 12 to 17 nm minus the oxide layer) is not surprising because the wax layers look extremely smooth and there do not show any optical interference effects even on the ultra smooth silicon wafers
(like you see with oil on water or a soap bubble as it thins down to bursting). This in itself implies that the thicknesses are less than 100 nm.

Tomorrow I will try to add another layer to each wafer!


----------



## nortonski

Looking forward to the results, care to try with some Zymöl Vintage?


----------



## spitfire

Not sure how to interpret those results but the crunch for me will be tomorrows results. ie. Will a second layer of wax leave anything substantial to the thickness? I suspect that the result will be that it does add something, even if it's only in the realms of a more complete even coverage. This would be borne out by countless detailers that have commented that a finish looked glossier or deeper after a second coat. We will see what the test shows though. I look forward to hearing your summations.
A sealant test would be the next logical step I would imagine:thumb: Thanks for doing this test BTW:thumb:


----------



## VZSS250

The second layer measurement will be the detailing equivalent of landing on the moon!!!


----------



## akimel

After the second coat, we also need a third and fourth coat to see any further layers can truly be added. At some point we must reach a threshold when the paint surface can no longer hold more wax ... so one might think.

I am so glad this test is being done. And after the testing for the waxes is completely, please do an identical test on a synthetic sealant. 

Thanks!


----------



## Bigpikle

good stuff- thanks for posting

I would really like to see:

1. the 2nd layer measurement
2. the measurement of both layers if they were applied in the same session - perhaps 1 hr apart

This might give us some information about the effective difference (if any) of waitin 1 hr vs 24 hrs?

Thanks for taking the time to do this and provide more information to our debates :thumb:


----------



## VZSS250

I think people will be linking this thread for a long time to come.

I know that Meguiars preaches two layers for complete coverage, but denies that extra layers = extra thickness.

And its commonly said that there's no point in going beyond 3 layers.


----------



## sam_boss260

Bigpikle said:


> good stuff- thanks for posting
> 
> I would really like to see:
> 
> 1. the 2nd layer measurement
> 2. the measurement of both layers if they were applied in the same session - perhaps 1 hr apart
> 
> This might give us some information about the effective difference (if any) of waitin 1 hr vs 24 hrs?
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to do this and provide more information to our debates :thumb:


Very keen to see the difference in applying 2 layers 24 hrs apart, or 2 layers 1 hour apart.


----------



## VZSS250

Only prob is variances in readings. When you're talking nanometres, the variances would be huge. Much like a PTG, you would need to average a number of readings to get a true indication. 

I think its important to discuss whether there is similar variances as that which we see in PTG readings across a panel.


----------



## FinstP

VZSS250 said:


> Only prob is variances in readings. When you're talking nanometres, the variances would be huge. Much like a PTG, you would need to average a number of readings to get a true indication.
> 
> I think its important to discuss whether there is similar variances as that which we see in PTG readings across a panel.


The variance has nothing to do with the magnitude of the quantities being measured. Your question is in part answered by the thickness map shown above. The standard deviation is 1.25 nm.

I have the results of adding a second layer but it will take me some time to type it up - maybe half an hour or so!


----------



## nortonski

FinstP said:


> The variance has nothing to do with the magnitude of the quantities being measured. Your question is in part answered by the thickness map shown above. The standard deviation is 1.25 nm.
> 
> I have the results of adding a second layer but it will take me some time to type it up - maybe half an hour or so!


Looking forward to seeing the outcome :thumb:


----------



## Bigpikle

watching closely


----------



## E46M3

drum roll...


----------



## FinstP

Results: Adding a second layer

The four wafers measured yesterday had another coat of Collinite no 915 applied using a damp microfibre cloth (pretty nearly 24 hours after first coat)
The new layer was buffed off wafer 1 after about 5 minutes. 
I could see that wafer 1 was obviously not completely dry when buffed, so I gave the other wafers another 5 minutes to fully dry, which may explain the results below.
The rig used ensures that the wafers are remeasured in the same position as for the first layer.

Wafer 1: 
Thickness after first application: 22.7 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 18.8 nm
Difference:- - 3.9 nm

Wafer 2:
Thickness after first application: 20.6 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 23.8 nm
Difference:- +2.2 nm 

Wafer 3:
Thickness after first application: 15.9 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 25.0 nm
Difference:- +9.1 nm 

Wafer 4:
Thickness after first application: 16.9 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 27.8 nm
Difference:- +10.9 nm

OK, it is hard to draw dramatic conclusiuons from a short study but it seems that it is more important to let the second layer dry properly than the first layer (remember the first layer on wafer 4 was buffed off immediately).
Also, ignoring wafer 1 for the moment, it seems that the thinner layers gained most from the second layer. 
We'll seee tomorrow whether a third layer adds any more!.

I have some nice results on the contact angle, beading, and water shedding, but to keep this short I will post later tonight.


----------



## FinstP

Wax results

Contact angle measurements.

From what I have seen on this and other forums, many people are interested in seeing good "beading" of water drops on their newly waxed surface. Quite often people expect or imply that this is the most important factor determining the ability to shed water.
I think that the results I will show here may cause some arguments and scratching of heads!

Scientific info:- The beading of water is quantified by accurately measuring the "contact angle" of drops of (pure) water placed on the surface. This is not quite as straightforward as it seems at first, since gravity, surface tension and the surface energy of the coating all play a part in determining the shape of a water drop on a surface. The measurements are best compared when the same volume of water is used for each drop and a computer fit to the drop shape, taking gravity into account, is used, as below.

The pic on the left shows an example side view of a single drop of water on the bare Silicon wafer.
The pic on the right is the same thing on a wafer that as 1 layer of Collinite no 915.
All four wafers mentioned above were tested and the average results (from four seperate drops) for the contact angles were :-

bare Si wafer 64.2 ± 0.8
Wafer 1 102.3 ± 0.5
Wafer 2 100.2 ± 1.2
Wafer 3 100.2 ± 2.1
Wafer 4 98.0 ± 1.2

There is a huge difference in contact angle between the bare wafer and the waxed wafers, and that is not too surprising - that's what wax is supposed to do! There are smaller differences between the four waxed wafers (all with only one coat at this stage).
What you may find surprising is that this huge difference doesn't effect the shedding of a stream of water!

Hmmm - I have two videos but they are too big. What's the best way to download them here?


----------



## spitfire

Eurika This seems to bare out what we all thought, that layering does add a little to the finish and quite possibly protection although there is still room for debate on the second point.


----------



## Bigpikle

Looks very interesting...thanks for taking the time to do this.

Seems like there is slight film build from 2 layers of 915, albeit much less on the 2nd layer than the first.

Any chance of doing a 3rd layer of trying a sealant product for the same test. Would be interesting to compare thickness of a layer of wax vs thickness...


----------



## PJS

FinstP, whilst borne from your own curiosity, please thank your employers on our behalf for giving you the freedom to play with their equipment.
Thanks for the data thus far presented - makes for interesting reading.

Now, a few things to throw into the mix:
1) Can you do a comparative between Auto-balm with its filler-heavy composition, and a non-filling sealant (Zaino/Opti-seal/etc)?
2) Can you do a wax and sealant 1-hour reapplication vs the data from leaving 24 hours between layers?
3) Can you do a 1-2 min dip test and rinse with half a wafer in say a mix of APC's - Surfex HD, Auto Smart G101, Meg's APC, on the wafers to see how resilient to them, the LSPs are?
This would be useful for those who pre-wash with the likes rather than foam.
Would validate how detergent resistant Collinite is.

Out of curiosity, why was Collinite used in the above tests?
As a hybrid polymer wax, I wonder if layering and thickness deposition are different from more traditional waxes like Dodo's, Victoria's, etc.


----------



## 03OKH

Thank you for a detailed interesting write up.

Be interesting to see where it leads and conclusions drawn.


----------



## FinstP

*Today's instalment*

More Results on Wax layers, and how easily they are removed!

To recap, I previously applied layers of Collinite using a damp microfibre cloth to clean silicon wafers and allowed to haze dry before buffing with a clean microfibre cloth.
The wax thickness was estimated from accurate measurements of the refectance over a broad wavelength range (400 to 1100 nm)..
(The refractive index of the dried wax layer was previously estimated by fitting ellipsometry results.)
The rig used ensures that the silicon wafers are replaced in the same position so that subsequent measurements are from the same place on the wafer.
A previous post shows how the thickness varies over the 6 inch wafer surface.
For information, If I repeat the measurement without moving the wafer, then the stability of the equipment is such that I will get the same thickness (+- 0.1 nm) over and over again.
If I remove the wafer from the rig and then replace it, I can get the same thickness again with a variation of no more than +-0.2 nm. 
The results shown in these posts are therefore due to real changes in the wax thicknesses.

Well, the idea today was to add a third layer of wax (Collinite no 915) to four silicon wafers that had previously been coated with 2 wax layers (see previous posts).
Before doing this I thought it would be a good idea to remeasure the wafers to see if 24 hours ageing had made any difference to the existing layers.

Here are the results along with yesterday's results:-

Wafer 1: 
Thickness after first application: 22.7 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 18.8 nm
Remeasured 24 hours later: thickness = 15.3 nm

Wafer 2:
Thickness after first application: 20.6 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 23.8 nm
Remeasured 24 hours later: thickness = 22.5 nm

Wafer 3:
Thickness after first application: 15.9 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 25.0 nm
Remeasured 24 hours later: thickness = 24.9 nm

Wafer 4:
Thickness after first application: 16.9 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 27.8 nm
Remeasured 24 hours later: thickness = 26.7 nm

So - a slightly larger variation from wafer 1, but overall around 4% loss.

Now I applied a third layer with the damp microfibre, waited 10 minutes and buffed with a clean, dry microfibre cloth.
To make it easier to compare, I show the results above once more, along with the new thicknesses.

Wafer 1: 
Thickness after first application: 22.7 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 18.8 nm
Remeasured 24 hours later: thickness = 15.3 nm
Thickness after 3rd application: 22.1 nm

Wafer 2:
Thickness after first application: 20.6 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 23.8 nm
Remeasured 24 hours later: thickness = 22.5 nm
Thickness after 3rd application: 17.0 nm

Wafer 3:
Thickness after first application: 15.9 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 25.0 nm
Remeasured 24 hours later: thickness = 24.9 nm
Thickness after 3rd application: 20.1 nm

Wafer 4:
Thickness after first application: 16.9 nm
Thickness after 2nd application: 27.8 nm
Remeasured 24 hours later: thickness = 26.7 nm
Thickness after 3rd application: 21.5 nm

The results were a bit surprising; wafer1 gained, but the other three lost thickness! 
I think you detailers will like the next bit!
Today I'm sure that I wasn't quite as constant with the buffing effort that I applied to the wafers as I had been on the previous two days 
and it does seem (for this product anyway) that the final thickness depends crucially on how much pressure is applied in buffing.

To test this I tried re-buffing around the measurement area with clean parts of a dry microfibre cloth. 
This time I tried to be consistent with the number of rubs and the pressure applied each time (as far as is possible manually)

The realy interesting thing is that each time I rubbed the area, I removed product - down to a fairly stable minimum of around 6 nm!
A typical result (I did this on several diffeent areas) was :-
Initial wax thickness = 20.1 nm
Light re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 14.9 nm
Light re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 7.3 nm
Light re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 5.8 nm
Light re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 5.8 nm
Light re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 5.6 nm. Looking at the clock, it's getting near to 6:30 pm so -
Heavy re-buff, remaining wax thickness = 5.6 nm!

OK, having seen this interesting result, I thought I may as well look at the effect of wiping over with a solvent laden cloth.Again this might be of interest to people here.
Note that I am using pure, reagent grade, solvents, uncontaminated by impurities, oils etc.

1)Initial wax thickness:- 18.0 nm
Wipe with ethanol, remaining thickness = 4.5 nm
Re-wipe with ethanol, remaining thickness = 4.0 nm

2)Initial thickness:- 24.2 nm
Wipe with iso-propanol, remaining thickness = 7.2 nm
This solvent left a distinct haze over the wiped area, so I stopped here.

3) Initial thickness:- 22.2 nm
Wipe with acetone, remaining thickness = 0.0 nm ! 
Note, acetone is a constituent of nail varnich remover, but that product also contains oils etc

That's all for today - some controversial (I'm sure) statements based on this series of measurements tomorrow!

PS Can anyone tell me how they upload videos to this forum?!


----------



## Bigpikle

excellent information - instead of pure solvent it would be good to see some solvent based psray sealants, like Caledonia did in the thread the other week.

You need to host your video on YouTube or Photobucket, then you can just post in the url and it will show as embedded video.


----------



## FinstP

PJS said:


> FinstP, whilst borne from your own curiosity, please thank your employers on our behalf for giving you the freedom to play with their equipment.
> Thanks for the data thus far presented - makes for interesting reading.
> 
> Now, a few things to throw into the mix:
> 1) Can you do a comparative between Auto-balm with its filler-heavy composition, and a non-filling sealant (Zaino/Opti-seal/etc)?
> 2) Can you do a wax and sealant 1-hour reapplication vs the data from leaving 24 hours between layers?
> 3) Can you do a 1-2 min dip test and rinse with half a wafer in say a mix of APC's - Surfex HD, Auto Smart G101, Meg's APC, on the wafers to see how resilient to them, the LSPs are?
> This would be useful for those who pre-wash with the likes rather than foam.
> Would validate how detergent resistant Collinite is.
> 
> Out of curiosity, why was Collinite used in the above tests?
> As a hybrid polymer wax, I wonder if layering and thickness deposition are different from more traditional waxes like Dodo's, Victoria's, etc.


The reason for using Collinite 915 is simple - it's the one I have been using on our own cars recently, so it's the one I have to hand!
I would be prepared to measure other products (within limits, - I would have to eventually think about the time and costs). I already have an offer of one wax - if anyone wants (dares?) to send me some of the real high-end products, I'm sure I could fit them in. I don't need much, probably only the equivalent of a few teaspoons worth.


----------



## FinstP

Bigpikle said:


> excellent information - instead of pure solvent it would be good to see some solvent based psray sealants, like Caledonia did in the thread the other week.
> 
> You need to host your video on YouTube or Photobucket, then you can just post in the url and it will show as embedded video.


That's what I thought, but when I tested the url generated by Photobucket I could see _all_ the images on my Photobucket page. THis didn't happem with single photos.


----------



## PJS

FinstP said:


> The reason for using Collinite 915 is simple - it's the one I have been using on our own cars recently, so it's the one I have to hand!
> I would be prepared to measure other products (within limits, - I would have to eventually think about the time and costs). I already have an offer of one wax - if anyone wants (dares?) to send me some of the real high-end products, I'm sure I could fit them in. I don't need much, probably only the equivalent of a few teaspoons worth.


Yeah, I'm conscious of the fact you're getting use of the equipment for zilch, so we can't be overly demanding of you or the company's time/ancillary costs.
That said, I don't think (for no other reason than logical) that price/market positioning of a wax, will affect the amount laid down.
That said, if you want some Auto-balm, just ask Bilt Hamber, and they'll sling one your direction.
Alternatively, PM me your address, and I'll send you a drop.


----------



## caledonia

Bigpikle said:


> excellent information - instead of pure solvent it would be good to see some solvent based spray sealants, like Caledonia did in the thread the other week.
> 
> You need to host your video on YouTube or Photobucket, then you can just post in the url and it will show as embedded video.


Personally I would like to see this one also. Dedicated spray sealants or wax topper. I have still been carrying out my test and although not as scientific as yours. Would be interesting in seeing those results. :thumb:

Products used within my test where Z8, Opti Seal, Red mist standard and tropical. I have currently added a few more to the fold.
Gordon.


----------



## FinstP

Videos of water shedding as promised in a previous post. These are much compressed from the original N97 camera vids and are best seen at 1/4 screen size I think.

First: Water from tap onto a clean silicon wafer (contact angle 65 degs)

http://s443.photobucket.com/remix/p...name=stream443.photobucket.com&fs=1&os=1&ap=1

Second: Water from tap onto Wafer1 with 1 coat wax (contact angle 101degs)

http://s443.photobucket.com/flash/r...tobucket.com/albums/qq157/FinstP/2f6c3f23.pbr

So, in spite of the huge difference in contact angle, which causes water to bead beautifully on the wax, there is no obvious difference in the ability to shed water.


----------



## akimel

This is revolutionary! The third application of wax actually decreased the thickness of the film layer. 

The question now is why. 

Certainly this one experiment raises questions about the efficacy of layering with carnauba waxes. I am curious to learn whether the same thing happens with a synthetic sealant.


----------



## Bigpikle

some interesting findings for sure - stuff that strikes me in particular:

1. 3rd layer reduced thickness in 3 of the 4 samples

2. the layer reduces after 24 hours

3. a simply wipe with a dry MF removes a significant % of a wax layer down to a point...

Some thoughts:

1. does a QD wipe remove less wax than a dry cloth?

2. does giving a final buff after outgassing have a serious affect on the wax layer?

3. do all waxes behave in the same way? Would love to see a less 'solventy' wax like Dodo SN tested. I wonder if it would behave differently...?


----------



## Carn

Very interesting results, thank you for taking the time to do these experiments :thumb:

One quick question from my side regarding the following statement:

"the wax layers look extremely smooth and there do not show any optical interference effects even on the ultra smooth silicon wafers"

Would this be indicative of the long held opinion by various members of the community that most LSP's don't add all that much to the finished surface from a visual perspective?


----------



## PJS

Bigpikle said:


> some interesting findings for sure - stuff that strikes me in particular:
> 
> 1. 3rd layer reduced thickness in 3 of the 4 samples
> 2. the layer reduces after 24 hours
> 3. a simply wipe with a dry MF removes a significant % of a wax layer down to a point...
> 
> Some thoughts:
> 
> 1. does a QD wipe remove less wax than a dry cloth?
> 2. does giving a final buff after outgassing have a serious affect on the wax layer?
> 3. do all waxes behave in the same way? Would love to see a less 'solventy' wax like Dodo SN tested. I wonder if it would behave differently...?


It was a bit more than a simple wipe though that removed 2/3rds of the thickness though.
I'd be curious to learn if the type of microfiber made a difference in that aspect, since I've long advocated the use of the suede type as a bonnet on a pad with the polisher, or large cloth in your hand.

Given that the amount of pressure used is instrumental in keeping something on the surface, then when Bilt Hamber recommended a very light touch for the 2nd layer of AB, that could apply across the board, for every brand's LSP.

This has certainly opened up a major can of worms - for those of us whom relish the technical side of detailing, and raising more questions as a result.


----------



## reparebrise

Thank you for this great study.


----------



## Bigpikle

PJS said:


> It was a bit more than a simple wipe though that removed 2/3rds of the thickness though.
> I'd be curious to learn if the type of microfiber made a difference in that aspect, since I've long advocated the use of the suede type as a bonnet on a pad with the polisher, or large cloth in your hand.
> 
> Given that the amount of pressure used is instrumental in keeping something on the surface, then when Bilt Hamber recommended a very light touch for the 2nd layer of AB, that could apply across the board, for every brand's LSP.
> 
> This has certainly opened up a major can of worms - for those of us whom relish the technical side of detailing, and raising more questions as a result.


agreed Phil - complex....

MF's have a lot of surface area due to their design, so as they do such a good job of removed wax residues when buffing, its not a BIG surprise they would also do so afterwards.

I wonder if use of a lubricant, like a water based QD, would reduce the amount removed by reducing friction? If I spray a QD onto wax before buffing, do I remove LESS of the wax layer?

Lots of interesting questions. Look forward to discovering more...


----------



## Edstrung

Carn said:


> Very interesting results, thank you for taking the time to do these experiments :thumb:
> 
> One quick question from my side regarding the following statement:
> 
> "the wax layers look extremely smooth and there do not show any optical interference effects even on the ultra smooth silicon wafers"
> 
> *Would this be indicative of the long held opinion by various members of the community that most LSP's don't add all that much to the finished surface from a visual perspective?*


I'd personally be more tempted to say that this actually supports the majority of detailers who are happy to tell you it's mostly in the prep work, not the LSP that gets you the perfect finish. The LSP will seal and protect that perfect finish, and give it durability and shine. Using a really bad wax, it could become lumpy (for want of a better word, I havent spent enough time in a lab ) on the surface and actually skew the light as you look at the car from different angles.

I guess the main outcomes of these experiments are to find out:

Does Layering work?
Does application/buffing using different methods affect the final product?
Durability under perfect test conditions.

My question however  You are using the flattest thing in the world, a silicon wafer, which is great. Would u mind running the numbers on a piece of prepped car bodywork which has been waxed as the Si wafers have been? The thickness on the Si wafer stayed pretty consistent. Try doing this on car bodywork, and see where the uneveness of paint affects wax and its properties.... just more food for thought :speechles


----------



## gt5500

Edstrung said:


> My question however  You are using the flattest thing in the world, a silicon wafer, which is great. Would u mind running the numbers on a piece of prepped car bodywork which has been waxed as the Si wafers have been? The thickness on the Si wafer stayed pretty consistent. Try doing this on car bodywork, and see where the uneveness of paint affects wax and its properties.... just more food for thought :speechles


Can't understand the point in that though as it will essentially be an uncontrolled test.


----------



## Edstrung

The point being, any of u use waxes on silicon wafers? Do we have any depth readings on actual cars from the last however many years of Automotive history?

Yes whilst these tests are giving us new and factual results which have been done in a controlled environment, what's it like on Cars ^^

EDIT - What's it like on *surfaces we actually use*?


----------



## caledonia

Personally these test ring true as far as my thoughts go.
I think on a wax as a self leveller, only filling up all the microscopic defects in the paints finish. Personally I don't believe it is possible to build up or maintain a wax layer beyond this point.

As the test show. The wax thickness increased. By layering and light buffing. But after the layer gassed off and fully cured. It then fell back slightly, due to the evaporation of oils, solvents or wax carrier. But became unstable. Similar to a honey comb. As these liquids left voids in the cured layer. So any pressure or in this case wiping or rebuffing removed the unstable honey combed layer. Yes the MF does play a hand in the removal of the layer due to the abrasive nature. So this must be taken into account also.

But I am following this very closely.
Thanks for taking the time and effort in posting your findings.
Gordon.


----------



## gt5500

Edstrung said:


> The point being, any of u use waxes on silicon wafers? Do we have any depth readings on actual cars from the last however many years of Automotive history?
> 
> Yes whilst these tests are giving us new and factual results which have been done in a controlled environment, what's it like on Cars ^^
> 
> EDIT - What's it like on *surfaces we actually use*?


No we don't use them on silicone wafers but to do an accurate test it must be done in a controlled manner, if this test was done on paint there would be far to many other variables to account for.


----------



## RaskyR1

Thank you very much for taking the time to do this test. :thumb:

I would be very interested in seeing this done with a sealant like Zaino, which is said to look better and better the more layers you apply...:tumbleweed:


Rasky


----------



## FinstP

Thanks for the supportive comments. 

In reply to Edstrung, it's just not possible to measure thicknesses (thinnesses!?) of the order of 20 nm on car panels. 
I would have preferred to precoat the wafers with clearcoat, and I did spend some time trying to do that.
The problem was that I couldn't get the clearcoat flat and uniform enough over the measurement area. Even something that looked reasonable to the eye (achieved by spin coating) proved too variable. 
To give you some idea, a typical single layer of clearcoat was around 5 microns thick (that is, 5000 nm) and the variation over the measurement area was greater than the 20 nm I need to measure. Since the optical techniques that I am using need to be able to characterise all of the layers acccurately, this was a non-starter.

I believe that using silicon wafers is not actually that bad, because as I said in the earlier post, they are always covered by a 2 to 3 nm layer of oxide that forms immediately on exposure to air. 
The wax does obviously adhere to the oxide - as evident by the fact that I couldn't remove all of it by buffing - there was always a layer of around 5 to 6 nm left no matter how hard I scrubbed with the microfibre. Afer the first nanometre the wax only sees wax, so I don't see a big problem.
I have to correct an earlier post where I said that the oxide layer thickness should be subtracted from the thicknesses I was quoting. This is true for one technique but not the one I am reporting here - it is taken into account in the pre-calibration.

I have to say here that these microfibre cloths are fantastically kind to the wafer surface, not causing any scratches at all, while clean anyway, - and even the slightest of scratches are obvious on this quality of surface.
I am tempted to take some electron microscope images of the fibres - maybe next week!

Here are some other measurement that might be of interest to you guys - concerning the weights of the wax layer at various stages(I should really be saying "mass" rather than weight, but I'll take off my physicist hat for the moment).

weight of "bare" silicon wafer = 25.8354 g (uncertainty of 1 in the last decimal place in all these measurements)
silicon wafer + undried wax = 25.8508 g
silicon wafer + dried wax = 25.8463 g (this was after 5 minutes drying and the reading was looking quite stable. It might well have continued to decrease if left much longer)
silicon wafer + buffed wax = 25.8355 g

So, over the area of the wafer, which is around 175 sq cm, (or 27 sq in) I have left 15.4 mg of undried wax, after 5 minutes 4.3 mg of volatile solvents have evaporated off, leaving 11.1 mg of dried wax - and I can't measure what's left after buffing!
I'l leave you to do the rest of the sums yourself but assuming normal wax densities, the last result isn't unreasonable for 20 nm of wax - I would need to use a higher precision balance.

One more point, I remember reading on another forum some discussion about wax "melting" and disappearing faster in the sun from black cars than from white cars. 
Somebody then said something to the effect that they had never seen a pool of wax on the ground after leaving their car in the sun!
Well, if the wax layer thickness is 20 nm over the entire surface of a car, and we assume a surface area of 10 sq m (on the large side for a car) then removing all of the wax from the car and forming it into a ball would make a ball of radius no more than 7 mm - wouldn't make much of a pool!


----------



## Edstrung

> In reply to Edstrung, it's just not possible to measure thicknesses (thinnesses!?) of the order of 20 nm on car panels.
> I would have preferred to precoat the wafers with clearcoat, and I did spend some time trying to do that.
> The problem was that I couldn't get the clearcoat flat and uniform enough over the measurement area. Even something that looked reasonable to the eye (achieved by spin coating) proved too variable.
> To give you some idea, a typical single layer of clearcoat was around 5 microns thick (that is, 5000 nm) and the variation over the measurement area was greater than the 20 nm I need to measure. Since the optical techniques that I am using need to be able to characterise all of the layers acccurately, this was a non-starter.


You knew what I was asking for though, shame I didn't realise what it was until you said it. Bonding the wax to Silicon is fine, but to the Clearcoat would actually give us the (majority of) surfaces we will apply wax to.

I get the feeling you have thought about this a bit and are doing everything POSSIBLE :thumb::thumb::thumb:

Thanks for thoroughly 'putting out' my bonfire, but right here, your fire is burning bright and I thank you for this topic! Keep going :devil::devil:


----------



## TH0001

This may be, hands down, the greatest thread on detailing products I have ever read.

Thank you SO MUCH for taking the time to do this and to post the results openly!!


----------



## Dodo Factory

This thread is certainly invaluable, and Fin has done a great service with this. The problem will always be 'real world' relevance as what the lab shows will need to be interpreted for real world significance. As has been pointed out, wax on clearcoat would be ideal as you could see differences in bonding. Some sealants, for example, have magnetic qualities and bond better to paints on ferrous surfaces. So we have to always allow for a margin for real world 'error'. Car bodywork isn't silicon wafers, but then again, Fin has pointed out that you can't measure on car bodywork/paint 

The other issue is the overall significance of the thickness of a layer. Within the product realm itself, it is of use, knowing how subsequent applications act and the third layer results, as an isolated but interesting test, are significant. But what about a covalent product like G-Techniq etc... these all covalently bond to paint and may not form a bond with silicon wafers at all  Would it be fair to judge one of these highly durable real world products by the thickness of its layer, or even if the layer remains on there at all? For all we know, 1 nm of covalent product may outlast a whole micron of beeswax. So let's not get too carried away.

One thing I have seen from my time on DW is that people crave hard facts and answers, as it makes a method easier. If I do A, then B, with this amount of C, then I get result D. This is painting by numbers, and a little dangerous. The Sistine Chapel never got painted by Michelangelo using precise instructions of how much paint to put where, and it is the same in detailing. You need to have an eye for interpretation and application of all information available, and then base your opinions and actions on these. This is why people like DaveKG, Epoch are so healthy for the forum, as everything remains open and there is still so much to research or experiment with. Definite answers rarely are as definite as you think.

How many times does someone ask exactly what pad, compound and speed they should be using on an unnamed machine to remove unnamed defects from unnamed paint? Every day. And there is no precise or definite answer (unless you want to endanger their paint) but there are good 'guides'.

So let the info here proceed as a guide, as I'm sure Fin himself would recommend it.

Finally, the most heartening aspect is that it *seems* some of the old wive's application tales have been proven correct in technical terms. The info here, as far as I know, is completely novel. But through experiments on a less scientific level (Bigpikle, caledonia) and experiments on a very technical and scientific level here, it seems that a couple of layers of wax or hybrid wax (of a certain composition) will generally be thicker. It seems that layering above that makes no difference (or could even be detrimental), which is certainly something 'found' in practice by many. It also seems that too early removal of a product will affect its thickness/durability (making an assumption these are the same in reality). And finally, solvents in products will remove uncured or even cured layers of product.

What has never cropped up before, apart from here, is potentially how buffing too hard could reduce the wax layer in thickness.

But is that _compressing_ the wax layer and making it more durable, as it is a denser coating now? Or is it simply removing it and making it thinner and less durable?

This is why we need to keep an open mind at all times and not draw early or incomplete conclusions. We all want to get some good info from this, whether customers or manufacturers, and we'll only do that if we research it as thoroughly and professionally as we can


----------



## JazzD

Thats a very interesting subject, thank you for taking the time to do this for the community.


----------



## FinstP

In reply to Dodo Factory, I am not making universal claims for the validity of the results. We're only talking about wax-like products here.
The results may well apply to other similar wax and sealants but not to other coatings, certainly not to paints and cross-linking polymers.

Some of the points made by Dodo Factory are interesting nevertheless.
Are there really sealants on the market containing particles that would be influenced by a magnet, or is "magnetic quality" being used in a non-scientific way, to mean something like sticky?

I know a lot about nano-particles and coatings containing nano-particles but I don't know the composition of the G-Techniq products, I would like to do some measurements on them. 
Silicon in silicon wafers is the archetypical example of covalent bonding, by the way!

The additional buffing doesn't "compress" the wax, I am pretty sure about that, because it would change the refractive index and I would see that in the measurements.


----------



## FinstP

*Up for Discussion*

I think the results so far are good news for detailers and wax manufacturers actually, and gives us all a lot to talk about. Here's my contribution for discussion.

To make my position clear, I am convinced that the most important thing by far for the appearance of a car finish is to have a clean ultra-smooth surface (unless you are a fan of matt finishes, where the ability to scatter light is the important factor).
This can only be achieved by meticulous attention to cleaning and polishing and I wholeheartedly recommend the articles by, for example, DaveKG on how to do this.

To digress a bit first, nowadays "paint surface" actually means the "clearcoat" because the pigmented layer that we normally mean by "paint" is well out of the reach of any wax (unless you are too heavy-handed with the sanding/polishing!)
When first introduced, manufacturers used to imply that the clearcoat eliminated the need to polish and wax, and would also make the repair of scratches/surface damage a breeze. They are good, but not that good, as is now well known because they can themselves be degraded by UV, are permeable to water vapour and are too easily scratched. 
Clearcoats are organic polymers of varied composition and therefore variable refractive index (for this discussion, refractive index is a material property that determines how light is reflected) 
This means that you have to be particularly careful when touching up the clearcoat on a black car. 
In fact, you need to match the existing refractive index to within better than 3% or the resprayed area will be visible to the eye. 
Why _black_ cars? I'm not sure I can give the scientific explanation in a convincing way without going into optics theory in too much detail for most people's taste - _but I could try_.
(Now there's an idea - Physics for Detailers - is that a course that would fly?)

Back to the main subject. 
Why might we need wax? As I see it there are at least five possible answers, with my opinions in brackets:-

1) To clean the paint surface. 
(Shouldn't be important, but might remove the last traces of contamination)

2) To reduce the surface energy of the paint surface, causing water to bead, and run off the surface when disturbed. 
(There is a dramatic increase in the contact angle of a waxed surface, but if you have done a full detail and produced a highly polished finish of the clearcoat, I doubt if you would notice much difference in the water shedding ability before and after waxing)

3) To protect the paint surface from ultraviolet light and moisture.
(I could be convinced that this is important, UV could cause yellowing and deterioration of the clearcoat. Water vapour does permeate through polymers and could lead to delamination of the clearcoat and/or oxidation of aluminium flake in metallic paint)

4) To change the reflective properties of the paint surface.
(Again, if you have already prepared to a clean, highly polished finish, a 20 nm wax layer will make a very small difference. However, this depends on the refractive index of the wax and of the clearcoat and could be important. 
It is a fact of optics that if the refractive indices of two materials in contact are the same, then there will be absolutely no difference in reflectance (or gloss, if you prefer). If the refractive index of the wax is less than that of the clearcoat (which is most likely) then the reflectance will be _reduced_ when viewed straight on! 
A black car can then appear blacker - presumably what people mean when they refer to "depth" - like looking into a deeper pool of water. However for light that strikes at a glancing angle, the reflectance will still be very high and may even be slightly higher than the unwaxed surface. 
The reflectance of all smooth surfaces tends to 100% at high (glancing) angles of reflection, so even a black car (or pool of water) will appear mirror-like for those surfaces that are oriented to reflect glancing angle light into the eye.
If the refractive index of the wax is higher than that of the clearcoat then the reflectance will be increased, this _could _be desireable on white cars)

5) To make it easier to clean the car later.
(Hmmm, it's too late and this could be the most contentious)


----------



## The Doctor

Thanks for doing this test,very interesting reading.

It seems to confirm what we always thought. You can only add a certain amount of wax before you start to remove some and it ends up just a waste of wax and time. The only problem is we all suspect Collinite waxes contain lots of solvents so maybe more chance of removing the previous layer? Thats why it would be good to do the same layering test with some other waxes. A good one may be Victoria Concours as its claimed to have one of the safest solvents in the world and be more of an old fashioned type wax.

One thing i notice is the results tend to give the opinion that waxing may be a waste of time altogether since the clearcoat actually does the job of protecting the colour coat (base coat). Since the amount of wax that is actually left behind is so tiny then maybe we are wasting our time waxing at all? In the real world this has been proven wrong. Clearcoat is essentially just clear paint. I have red car with no clearcoat and if i dont have wax on the car it will go pink in no time at all so there is real world proof that the tiny amount of wax is actually doing some protecting (certainly from UV light anyway). Since clearcoat is really just clear paint then the wax must also be protecting the clearcoat as it does my paint with no clearcoat? The question is does clearcoat actually need protection? I would say yes but far less protection and looking after than non clearcoated paint.

Also,the test is done on an optically perfectly surface. Whilst theres no argument that most of your final finish comes from the polishing stage just how many people have optically perfect paint on a daily driver? From the moment you do your first wash after polishing the paint your inducing tiny imperfections to the paint no matter how careful you are (especially on softer paints anyway). 6 months down the line you may have paint that is far from optically perfect. This is when a wax makes the most difference IMO as it fills in tiny swirls and smooths the surface. I guess you could say the less perfect your paint is the more difference a wax will make to the finish or the more optically perfect your paint is the less difference the wax will make. 

Just a few thought i had after reading the results.


----------



## FinstP

The Doctor said:


> Thanks for doing this test,very interesting reading.
> 
> It seems to confirm what we always thought. You can only add a certain amount of wax before you start to remove some and it ends up just a waste of wax and time. The only problem is we all suspect Collinite waxes contain lots of solvents so maybe more chance of removing the previous layer? Thats why it would be good to do the same layering test with some other waxes. A good one may be Victoria Concours as its claimed to have one of the safest solvents in the world and be more of an old fashioned type wax.
> 
> One thing i notice is the results tend to give the opinion that waxing may be a waste of time altogether since the clearcoat actually does the job of protecting the colour coat (base coat). Since the amount of wax that is actually left behind is so tiny then maybe we are wasting our time waxing at all? In the real world this has been proven wrong. Clearcoat is essentially just clear paint. I have red car with no clearcoat and if i dont have wax on the car it will go pink in no time at all so there is real world proof that the tiny amount of wax is actually doing some protecting (certainly from UV light anyway). Since clearcoat is really just clear paint then the wax must also be protecting the clearcoat as it does my paint with no clearcoat? The question is does clearcoat actually need protection? I would say yes but far less protection and looking after than non clearcoated paint.
> 
> Also,the test is done on an optically perfectly surface. Whilst theres no argument that most of your final finish comes from the polishing stage just how many people have optically perfect paint on a daily driver? From the moment you do your first wash after polishing the paint your inducing tiny imperfections to the paint no matter how careful you are (especially on softer paints anyway). 6 months down the line you may have paint that is far from optically perfect. This is when a wax makes the most difference IMO as it fills in tiny swirls and smooths the surface. I guess you could say the less perfect your paint is the more difference a wax will make to the finish or the more optically perfect your paint is the less difference the wax will make.
> 
> Just a few thought i had after reading the results.


No, if you read my last post, I do not think waxing is a waste of time.
I do believe that even 20 nm of wax has an effect on UV and I will make some direct measurements this week. I agree with the rest of your remarks about ageing of the paint surface as well.

If you have a red car without clearcoat, then you have a very particular problem. The pink effect, known as chalking, is widely held to be a photo-catalytic effect from the interaction of UV with anatase (the white titanium oxide used as a filler) causing oxidation of red pigments in particular. Wax will be particularly important for your car!

Incidentally, the same photocatalytic effect is now used in window coatings to make them self-cleaning (see Pilkington's website)


----------



## The Doctor

FinstP said:


> No, if you read my last post, I do not think waxing is a waste of time.


Well i wasnt having a go at you to be honest. I was speaking about the results in general. My initial thoughts after reading your results were that the wax left behind is so tiny in thickness that i started to question if it could offer any protection whatsoever to whatever it was applied to.


----------



## The Doctor

Just to bring this back up ive just had a thought regarding layering. Would it be possible to try and get more wax thickness by using the spit shine method?


----------



## Dodo Factory

My guess is not, as spit shining came from the concept of 'closing the pores' in carnauba wax through the addition of water to add more shine.

In response to a previous post, I'd need to check with our techs but I believe that there could be materials out there that may be magnetic by nature, so that they are likely to bond to a substrate by means of an attraction to an underlying ferrous metal. We haven't researched them, but covalency is an interesting subject matter - silicon may be beautifully covalent (as glass is) but what about paint? What spare atoms are there in modern clearcoats? Are cellulose finishes as likely to give durability as a 'ceramic' clearcoat? I have no answers - I'm no paint expert, but covalency with glass I can understand but it seems a grey area with regard to paint finishes. These are polyurethane (plastic) coatings from my understanding, not surfaces laden in glass, silicon, silicate whatever. I am not sure how reactive they are, so if applying to a silicon (potentially reactive) wafer, we just need to bear the different characteristics of the materials in mind when we come to paint 

Nevertheless, this is stunning work by Fin and great info is coming from it. But forums will crave a 'thick wax = best wax' result, which may even work in our favour as I'd ask the chemists to make a product that spreads like marmite, but it does no-one any favours in the long run. Performance and durability are complicated and we need as much info and analysis added at this stage to ensure the conculsions are accurate, thoughtful and true, rather than misleading. It is easier to grasp a simple misunderstanding than a complicated truth.


----------



## akimel

This is such a great thread! 

Fin, please consider repeating your tests in two ways:

1) Multiple coats of a synthetic sealant (e.g., FK 1000p or Blackfire Wet Diamond). I am eager to know if sealant film gets thicker with additional coats, or will there be a decrease with the third coat, as we saw with Collinite?

2) A synthetic sealant topped with a carnauba. Same questions.

Thanks again for both the tests and your interpretations of the results.


----------



## FinstP

Dodo Factory said:


> .... But what about a covalent product like G-Techniq etc... these all covalently bond to paint and may not form a bond with silicon wafers at all  Would it be fair to judge one of these highly durable real world products by the thickness of its layer, or even if the layer remains on there at all? For all we know, 1 nm of covalent product may outlast a whole micron of beeswax. So let's not get too carried away.





Dodo Factory said:


> ...... but covalency is an interesting subject matter - silicon may be beautifully covalent (as glass is) but what about paint? What spare atoms are there in modern clearcoats? Are cellulose finishes as likely to give durability as a 'ceramic' clearcoat? I have no answers - I'm no paint expert, but covalency with glass I can understand but it seems a grey area with regard to paint finishes. These are polyurethane (plastic) coatings from my understanding, not surfaces laden in glass, silicon, silicate whatever. I am not sure how reactive they are, so if applying to a silicon (potentially reactive) wafer, we just need to bear the different characteristics of the materials in mind when we come to paint...............


Now that's interesting, because your second post above is exactly what I was going to say in response to your first quote above, before I decided I was writing too much! It is certainly possible to covalently bond nano-particles to polymers in the lab, whether it is possible on a car finish is another question. However, they claim to have done it (all in the preparation and application?) - it would be nice to have some of the G-Techniq product to test.


----------



## Dodo Factory

: ping: CUSTOMER SERVICES CALLING ROB AT G-TECHNIQ!

LOL. If he doesn't respond, I'm sure someone here can oblige.


----------



## Epoch

Dodo Factory said:


> : ping: CUSTOMER SERVICES CALLING ROB AT G-TECHNIQ!
> 
> LOL. If he doesn't respond, I'm sure someone here can oblige.


Did you call :wave:


----------



## outcastjack

that was a brilliant study thankyou very much


----------



## TH0001

Also, is Collonite a wax or a sealant or both?


----------



## charlie53

TH0001 said:


> Also, is Collonite a wax or a sealant or both?


It's a wax.


----------



## ant_s

just read through 9 pages and got very confused at some points but it has made for a very good read and very interesting to find that collinite "wipes" away some of itself on a 3rd layer, i think from now on i will not wax after every wash as i dont think there will be much need, but it would be good to see what effect a layer of sealant something similar to fk1000 and then a layer or 2 of colli does (actually it would be great becuase these are the products i use lol) but thanks for spending your time doing the tests and telling us about your finds


----------



## caledonia

There is a follow on thread here.

http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=130901

Gordon.


----------



## ant_s

thank you i didnt know about that thread lol


----------



## Leonneke

The Netherlands - Your votes Please:

Dear Fin:

I would like to thank you for your time and commitment by doin' these test.
I will try to translate some of the information in this topic and will post it on the Dutch Car Clean Forum. I really admire your line of work. It almost looks like a real Randomised Clinical Trail. Think you know what this means. So therefore I really think it is a very usefull thread.

Off Course, like Dodo says, it is not tested on car paint. But the way you have set up these test are very good and "close to real".....
The reply of Dodo is very usefull to. A lot off answers seem to be given by the test. But in fact, a lot of new questions need to be answered. The comment of Dodo:
"Is the wax removed or compressed" is really good. Someone with brains. 

Like in this forum, there are some people in Holland that really know a lot about detailling. By doin' their own Trail & Error. Again and again. Different waxes on one car. Different waxex over each other. Same wax over it's self.
Most of them come to some conclusions that are very likely to these results.

1) More than 3 layers doesn't give better results.
2) Buffing should be done very smooth.
3) Cure the wax good, buff, wait for 24 hours and put on the next layer.

That's what the experienced detailers in Holland have found out. Also in this forum the serious guys advise the same. Your tests seem to subcribe these statements.

Now, it is really a WORLD of DETAILING. Unite & share information. Great topic !!!!!


----------



## VALE TUDO

this has to be the greatest detailing thread, ever!


----------



## Flakey

Unbelievable. So multiple costs is useful only for ensuring that you didn't miss anything.


----------



## year

IMO' Anything over 2 coats is a waste as you start to loose the layer of thickness when you reach the third coat.


----------



## Bero

Flakey said:


> Unbelievable. So multiple costs is useful only for ensuring that you didn't miss anything.


Holy thread revival batman!!


----------



## kingswood

great read. found it after wondering if its worth getting the car out and putting a 2nd coat of dodo juice on the golf. 

its a science, not a game!

be one 1 more coat but not 2! lol


----------

