# Sticky  Kevin Brown Method



## Voodooking

I first saw the Kevin Brown method described on another forum several months ago. He seems like a guy who has started a whole heap of hype, and then been to precious to actually describe his method in a reasonable way.

From what I can take from it he uses non-diminishing abrasive compounds, instead of diminishing abrasives. Basically, I think he must push down on the polisher with a lot of pressure, then ease off towards the end. I think he covers the whole pad in polish too, rather than just a couple of blobs that we normally use.

Does anyone know which would be the best type of polish to use for that method, or have any more information about it?

I have been waiting patiently for something to happen, but have kind of given up on the guy. Everyone on the US sites are licking the guy's ar$e thinking it's acceptable to wait for a gold engraved tablet containing the holy grail of polishing or something, but for me I'd have a lot more respect for the guy if he just helped people out and gave them a few simple instructions.

I've googled it, but just get like 40+ page forum posts that I can't be ar$ed trailing through. Anyone else got any thoughts?


----------



## 03OKH

> Does anyone know which would be the best type of polish to use for that method, or have any more information about it?


I cant confirm its the best product, but my car was machined polished back in June using the Kevin Brown meth, and the product used was Megs 205.

This is a link to mine.

http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=125382

Dave KG did a comprehensive write up on megs 205 for further information.

http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=98020

I however have no idea if the Zenith point method is different to the KB one, sorry.

Tony


----------



## Kevin Brown

*Where are you LOOKING for your info?!*

Thanks for your interest in my paper. It is a work in progress.
There is a LOT of info out and about already... don't know if you've seen any of it so I spent about 30 minutes and gathered some to post it here for you. By the way- several guys regularly chime in when questions arise about the KBM (Kevin Brown Method). Hey- I didn't name it/them that!!!! Todd Helme (TH0001) did. He actually mentioned it first in this thread:

http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=102441 (post #2)


TH0001 said:


> *1948 Lincoln Continental V12*
> Detail Time: 15 hours / Full Exterior Paint Correction / LSP's / Paint: Autoglym Super Resin Polish
> 
> This is a very rare car with a very cool flat head V12. I only polished the exterior and did no other detailing. All polishing was done with Meguiars M105 on a porter cable using *Kevin Brown's methods of madness*.


Here is a little bit about the *random orbital* process:
http://www.detailingbliss.com/forum/f37/kevin-brown-method-8416-5.html (post #44) 07-30-2009, 11:38 PM
_Quote:I was interested to see this post resurrected. Has his infamous paper ever come out?_

No,not yet. I apologize for it all the time, too!
The paper is worked on nightly, sometime a few minutes, sometimes a couple of hours. But I do something with it every night. I have been stuck on three diagrams lately- not the graphics but words! For these three diagrams, I just realized I need to throw them into the Word program, place them, read the surrounding text, and then add the text in the diagrams. I certainly am no author, nor am I a graphics expert. Hopefully it will all come together in a sensible manner and be useful to those interested in the topic.

Part of the reason for its delay is because the focus of the paper has changed. It has shifted from being primarily about the application of M86 and M105 with the random orbital to how the random orbital works, and how to get the best results when using it. I have not even LOOKED at the original text in weeks! Instead, I have been adding to the beginning of the paper. The beginning is going to be graphics-heavy versus the end portion.

As for all the grease splatters, busted shafts, wheezing and whirling noises surrounding these poor little machines... I recommend that if you are experiencing these problems, you could do a few things about it. First- if you are finding all sorts of information on the forums telling you how to build a platform on your random orbital so that you can stand on it to add some "pressure", don't do it. The whole "pressure" thing has been overblown. The amount that should be used is dependent upon upon many factors. The buffing pad and buffing liquid types are certainly at the top of the list. Pad rotation is almost always mentioned when the "method" is discussed because it should be used as a gauge to help determine whether the combination you are using is working efficiently.

If you are having to press down extremely hard to notice an improvement in defect removal versus a normal amount of pressure, you need to either use a smaller diameter pad, a shorter pad, or a pad utilizing a different material. Another reason you may not be seeing a big improvement in defect removal may have to do with the machine's stroke diameter. If you are using a small stroke machine (3/32" or 3/16" is pretty small), try using a machine using a 5/16" or 3/4" orbit diameter.

FYI- The DeWalt DW443 and the Festool Rotex RO150 FEQ each have a 3/16" stroke, the Meguiar's G100/G110/G220, and the Porter Cable machines use a 5/16" stroke, while the Makita BO6040 has a 7/32" stroke diameter. The Dynabrade 61379/61384 Dual Action Buffing Head features a 3/4" stroke (talk about a random orbital on steroids!).

Here is some good info. It was posted on another site by me:

Thanks for the kind words, guys.

*I have intentionally avoided posting information about this method because there are soooo many reasons this method works*. I think it is best to give a few pointers now, because there is a lot of misinformation and confusion about the procedure. I do not want newbies to try this method before using what is normally recommended!! *NEWBIES- this is NOT for you!!!* Until the paper is released, stick with the manufacturers recommendations if at all possible (with exception to the priming part- it helps every time I've tried it).

Luster... here you go!
While an increase in pressure is necessary, it is not the only factor that should be addressed when using the "method".

Proper priming of the pad is super important!
This one step will have more positive effect on polishing performance than anything else. Well, a clean pad is equally important.

Consistent pressure across the pad is key.

The pad should be rotating at all times. More speed is a good thing when heavy defect removal is the goal. This does not mean that slow rotation will not work. However- some pads rotate well while others do not. Oftentimes, if there is insufficient removal of defects even with a substantial amount of downward pressure, a swap of the pad to one that is more aggressive or smaller in diameter will work. The guys that are using smaller diameter pads to remove heavy defects are working smart- not hard.

After all of the defects have been satisfactorily removed, final polishing should be accomplished using the softest or mildest pad available, with a couple of caveats:

The pad must be able to accept firm pressure without marring the surface. If marring of the paint occurs, do a test spot by hand using a foam or microfiber applicator pad. Check your work. If the marring has been eliminated, the pad should be inspected for damage or contamination. If the pad is clean, it is likely that it is incompatible with the paint type when paired with the particular buffing liquid being used.

There is a lot of confusion pertaining to how much product should be used when using this "method".

In general, for defect removal
First, thoroughly prime the pad as shown here:

http://meguiarsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31568&highlight=pad+priming+kevin+brown

Add buffing liquid as needed, making sure to clean the pad prior to adding more buffing liquid. To properly clean the pad, lightly brush with a soft nylon bristled brush. Next, use compressed air to remove stuck on debris, followed by a quick towel cleaning of the pad. To towel clean, hold a microfiber towel in one hand and press the pad into it while throttling the machine using the other hand for 3-5 seconds (or until the pad looks clean). For safety sake, a microfiber bonnet over a foam pad works great!

To hold the bonnet/pad combo, this type of applicator is ideal (this link takes a minute to load so be patient):

http://www.ferroind.com/pdfs/Ferro Industries, Inc Catalog.pdf

(bottom of page 7, part number JPS-60)

For final polishing, prime the finishing pad as previously discussed, and let the pad sit for a few minutes. This will allow the buffing liquid some time to permeate the pore structure of the pad. Prior to use, remove a majority of the buffing liquid utilizing the towel cleaning method previously discussed. This will eliminate clumps of abrasive material and remove excess product from the pore structure of the pad (this way no added product will make its way onto the surface of the pad). At this point, the pad face should have a very consistently applied amount of buffing liquid. Then, polish at a slow speed setting, making certain that the pad is able to rotate (it does not matter how many rotations there are, the goal is to minimize the chance of "flatspotting the pad). Add small amounts of product as needed.

If some marring persists, super-clean the pad or replace it, re-prime as mentioned, and then remove as much product as you can using compressed air and the microfiber (as discussed). There will still be some fresh and moist buffing liquid attached to the pad. Use a very slow speed setting, use constant pressure, and DO NOT lighten up at the end of the cycle. That's all.

Finally- if you do not think the effort is worth it, and swear by a rotary, no biggie! I am a rotary guy, too. This method does work and does not typically grenade machines. The "paper" is first about the random orbital, and then about the "method". If you decide to give it a go and are not seeing success, ask around, or you can always e-mail or call me! I am very easy to get a hold of, and the goal here is to help guy achieve better paint polishing results. Thanks!

*Here are some diagrams which will be used in the paper:
*http://www.autopia.org/forum/car-detailing/119329-kevin-brown-s-paper.html (post #9):










*Same thread, post #51:*

As some of you know (especially if you have chimed in on this thread!), I have been working on an in-depth paper about the random orbital. Like many of you, I check out several detailing sites. Occasionally, I stumble upon a question pertaining to the durability of the "*clutch system*" used in the random orbital. This is a seemingly reasonable concern, as most paint polishing enthusiasts do not typically worry about _how_ the machine does what it does- they just want it to _work well_ and _work for a long time_!

So, I thought I would post up some diagrams which I plan on using in the "paper". Now- for those of you that are wondering about the clutch system.... don't, because... *There are no clutches in the random orbital.*

Here are four diagrams that will _hopefully_ help you understand how the movement is created:





































And if these diagrams *do not* help you better understand the random orbital... then I am in a HEAP o' trouble!

*About reverse rotation and how it occurs:
*http://truthindetailing.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=1289 (post #8)

I have sold hundreds of the Meguiar's G100 versions of these machines. They have an extremely good track record. The most abuse they seem to encounter is in the electrical cord (guys seem to bend them all sorts of ways). As for the mechanical quality, they certainly are durable as anything out there.

It actually takes almost no pressure to do this.
I can easily cause the pad to spin backwards with any speed setting, and the lightest touch imaginable. All it takes is a concentration of the machine movement, overall weight, and applied pressure to a small area.

To put it another way, if there is enough friction present to stop the random rotation of the attached buffing pad or sandpaper disc, then the eccentric orbit takes over. I have already covered this in the "paper". Here are the diagrams that will be used:





































I hope these make sense.

More on the way...!


----------



## Kevin Brown

*About the rotary method (not much to it..!)
*
http://www.autopia.org/forum/car-detailing/112746-2-passes-m105-wool-no-luck.html (good read throughout, procedure on post #16)

Since you've already got the M105 and the wool pad (plus plenty of others)...

Go ahead and try this:

1. Prime the pad THOROUGHLY. 
Rub it in with your hand. It'll take a bit more than you're used to applying.

2. Apply a bead of M105 to the surface, pull it in, and polish at low speed *(1000 rpm)*.
Try 2-3 passes, or until the M105 is just starting to dry.

3. Using a fine mist, spray the surface with water. 
Do not add additional product- Just re-polish with what's already in the pad.

I think you'll see a 50% improvement in the cut, but you'll probably see an increase in swirling (it can be easily removed).

After trying this method (count it as one cycle), spur the wool pad (blow it clean with compressed air if you have it).

I won't PROMISE a better result, but I am pretty sure you're going to GET a better result.

*A bit more about the rotary method (mostly about priming is all):
*
http://www.autopia.org/forum/car-detailing-product-discussion/110091-meg-s-d151-5.html (post #54 and #55)

Glad to give an opinion... thanks for contacting me weekendwarrior.

A quick call to Jason Rose of Meguiar's verified some thoughts I had about PRC. It was primarily designed to remove light to moderate defects with a _rotary_ polisher. It had to leave the surface in very good condition while providing protection. It had to have a long application cycle but not sling, stick to the surface, or create lots of dust. It had to be easy to wipe away and not leave a white haze on textured plastics. If the shop using the product wanted to do a one-step application, it had to leave the paint looking pretty good once the protection went away. Finally, if a shop wanted to do a follow-up application with PRC, it had to further polish the surface, leaving no micro marring. A lot to consider, but overall, it seems that D151 comes pretty close to hitting the mark.

Now, just because Jason and the R&D team tailored this product for a specific type of detailing doesn't mean we shouldn't expect even _more_ out of PRC, right?

I have some experience using D151 Paint Reconditioning Cream (PRC) but it's not my 'go-to' liquid. Therefore, I don't have the depth of knowledge that comes from using a product on a regular basis. However- I've used it a few times and I did test PRC prior to its release. I've found that increased downforce delivers impressive results. For defect removal I tend to use lower rpm and increased downforce when polishing with a rotary. The exception to this rule is when I'm using a compound to cut paint immediately after wet-sanding. To aid in leveling the paint, I run the rotary at around 1,800 prm and then back it down to 1,000-1,200 rpm to finish. Of course settings vary from car to car, but this is the norm for me.

When removing defects with the random-orbital, I use high OPM and a LOT of downforce. For final polishing, I drop the speed and continue to use a LOT of downforce (not as much as the defect-removal step, but quite a bit). I know that this is not the way things are normally done, but the most recent Meguiar's products to hit the market are using very different technologies (as compared to the older traditional style compounds and polishes). In the case of Meguiar's products, this technique has worked well for me with M86, M105, and D151.

I specifically asked about use of this product with Lake Country's Foamed Wool Pad (FWP). As I've only used the FWP a very limited amount, I cannot claim to know all of its idiosyncrasies. So- I just used it, and it seems to be a very capable pad.

I did a quick but thorough test on the fender of my 1994 Mazda pickup (original paint). I hardly ever polish or wax the thing- I just drive the wheels off it and wash it every couple weeks. Many times, I just hit it with de-ionized water and wipe it with a cotton towel (if there's time).

I took some pics- I know they're not the best, and the lighting is not ideal. The main thing is- I was able to easily remove moderate defects and leave the paint looking pretty good. Here we go:

Not great shots, but the fender is covered with light defects, and a few moderate scratches. I scuffed each side with Abralon 2000 and water.














































Left side, shows paint as-is and the Abralon scuffing.









Right side, shows paint as-is and the Abralon scuffing. 









Rotary, foamed wool, D151 PRC.









Prime the pad. Rub the PRC in by hand.









Have to add more... still some dry areas. 









I think I use a bit more product to prime the pad than most guys. It's like priming a lawnmower that's run out of gas- pour some gas in the throat of the carb, pull the string until it starts. Whatever gas it doesn't use, it spits out the exhaust! Same thing with a pad prime- what the pad doesn't use for priming will sling off the pad... I'm just kidding a bit here, but there was actually very little sling (if any).

I think this is one area that is overlooked as not so important. Well, it is very important, and really makes a difference to overall performance.

Apply a bead and buff. Left side: Lake Country Purple Foamed Wool Pad / 1,800 rpm / application time- 62 seconds.









Wipe clean, stripped 3x with Meguiar's Detailer Glass Cleaner (5:1 dilution)









Close-up shots.


















Meguiar's W5000 Double-Sided Wool Cutting Pad. It's listed as an 8-inch pad, but edge-to-edge it's more like 10 inches. I guessed that I'd be using the pad effectively to the 8-inch diameter point.









Lake Country Purple Foamed Wool Pad. Looks like it's almost 8 inches (Lake Country's site shows a 7 or 7-1/2 inch pad. I guessed that I'd be using the pad effectively to the 6-inch diameter point.









Prime the pad. Rub the PRC in by hand. 









Have to add more... still some dry areas. 









A proper prime-job. This is a much bigger pad than the PFW pad.









At this point I wanted to adjusted my polishing speed. To be fair, I figured that I should drop my speed when using the larger diameter W5000 pad. This was to adjust the velocity of the pad closer to the velocity of the PFW pad.

I used the PFW pad at 1,800 rpm. Usable area was estimated to be 6 inches. Using this formula:

RPM * C = V
where
RPM = Revolutions per minute
C = circumference <- Notice this is 2*π*r
V = velocity

I came up with: 1,800 (rpm) x 18.84 (6 x 3.14) (6" diameter times pi) = 33,912.

So, using the same formula, and a problem of: X(unknown rpm) x 25.12 (8 x 3.14) (8" diameter times pi) = 33,912 (same as the total of the PFW pad). Then, 33,912 / 25.12 = 1,350 rpm. My buffer had a speed-setting of 1,400 rpm available, so I used it. The velocity wasn't exactly the same, but close enough considering I was only guessing the diameter of the pad actually being used.

Forgot to show the bead of product applied, but it was a little more than the PFW side because the area being polished was a bit larger (needed the space for the larger pad).









Wiped clean, stripped 3x with Meguiar's Detailer Glass Cleaner (5:1 dilution). Sun shot of the PFW side. Noticeable swirl, but not quite as bad as it looks in the pics... Some of the 'swirl' is light refraction.









Sun shot of the W5000 side, stripped 3x with glass cleaner. Noticeable swirl, and it's obvious that the swirling is worse on this side.









Shot of the left, masked, and right. Swirls are noticeable, but pretty fine.


















Time to fire up the random-orbital. I'm going to use a Meguiar's W8207 SoftBuff 2.0 Foam Polishing Pad.









Prime the pad. Rub the PRC in with your hands. 



























More PRC to polish with. 









I polished the entire area (working time approximately 1 minute). Residue shot.









Wiped clean, stripped 3x with Meguiar's Detailer Glass Cleaner (5:1 dilution).


















I felt that I could get a better polishing result. So, I used a specially-sized Lake Country pad that my friend ZoranC had built for his personal use. ZoranC readily admits that the foam and sizing is nothing new, but not all levels of aggressiveness were available in this diameter and thickness. So, he ordered them up! He's actually got six foam variations. I like them (so far I've only used three of the six). I think he had to order more than he can actually use, so maybe he would sell some if the demand was there.


















I primed the pad, and worked the entire area again. Working time was approximately one minute.
Picture shows a stripped surface, wiped clean, stripped 3x with Meguiar's Detailer Glass Cleaner (5:1 dilution).



























Now, I know that I've basically done a three-step polishing job. But!- I could really bear down on this pad, comfortably. Looking back on it, I should have heeded my own advice and PUSHED a lot harder when using the W8207 pad. The main point of the final application was to show how well the PRC performed. Impressive defect removal and a pretty darn good finish. I used a variety of machines and pads- You can choose how you wish to apply PRC. The best advice I can give is super-prime the pad, and increase downward pressure when polishing. Hope this helps.



weekendwarrior said:


> Kevin - how does the cutting ability and finish when using say an 8006 pad on the rotary compare to what you got with the Purple Foamed Wool? Any certain RPM range, or work time work best for the 8006 pad?


I don't see anywhere near the cutting power going from any string-style pad (wool, foamed wool, twisted, tufted, etc) to foam.

When removing defects with foam, I drop the speed to the 1,000-1,200 rpm range (to minimize a rapid increase in temperature due to pad velocity). Then, I increase applied downforce. This heats the paint more than light pressure, but it helps the pad to better remove the defect. Otherwise, the pad will not 'force' the abrasive onto the paint surface. The additional pressure better contours the pad to the surface, too. Think in terms of how a backing supports a piece of wet-sanding paper, helping the paper (and abrasive) better contour to the surface.

Remember- PRC uses a very refined abrasive particle, and it contains a very slippery lubrication and polymer (for protection).


----------



## Kevin Brown

*About the random orbital paired with the Surbuf:*
http://truthindetailing.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=294

*Using the Surbuf Pad with a random-orbital for defect removal*

No pictures of the procedure here. 
I find it hard to capture the nuances of a surface properly leveled with a rotary compared to a surface leveled with this method. 
Hopefully, one of the forum members will try this method and post some high quality shots of the process.

There are a few combinations that work well when using the random-orbital polisher to level paint. This particular combination uses products that are readily available. I am not suggesting that paint-polishing beginners attempt to wet sand their paint jobs and then polish away the scratches using this system! In fact, only those proficient with the use of a rotary buffer should attempt to use this method. This ensures that any remaining defects can easily be removed, should the listed procedure not work well with the vehicle's paint type.

Here is the list of products I use for this particular system:

Meguiar's G110 Random-Orbital Polisher 
Meguiar's M105 Ultra Cut Compound
Meguiar's Last Touch Detail Spray
Surbuf R Series Microfingers 6.5" pad
Meguiar's W9006 SoftBuff Finishing Pad

This is not a one-step system, so plan on changing pads and possibly buffing liquid to remove any remaining defects. Since my best results have been achieved when using M105 as the buffing liquid, I recommend that you also use M105. This way, if some guidance or opinions are desired, it will be much easier to troubleshoot unsatisfactory or inconsistent results. There are a lot of highly skilled paint polishers that are members of this forum (and have already used M105), so their experience can also benefit us, should attempts to use this system deliver less than satisfactory results.

*The Surbuf R Series Pad, and how I think it works most effectively*










A quick read of the comments posted on this forum about the Surbuf pad reveals varied opinions pertaining to overall pad performance. This is understandable, because the type of paint being polished, the choice of buffing liquid, the polishing procedure, and the pressure placed upon the pad can really affect defect removal and polishing results. While this is true with all other pads, the difference in performance when using the Surbuf pad can be dramatic.

One of the biggest complaints about the pad pertained to the fact that the microfingers would fall off the pad and lie upon the paint surface. Normally, this would be a huge problem. In the case of foam pads, a piece of contamination this size placed between the pad and paint surface would likely create some rather deep scratches. Since stray microfingers will not cause a problem with this particular paint leveling procedure, it is not critical to remove loose fibers from the paint surface during the leveling process.
The instruction sheet included with the pad recommends vacuuming the Surbuf pad prior to use. Vacuuming, a quick brush of the pad, or a burst of compressed air aimed at the microfingers will be sufficient for pad preparation.

The Surbuf's microfingers are attached to a foam pad, set in a vertical position. The literature claims that the microfingers are non-tufted. I suppose this means that the tiny fibers are not plugged into the pads in groups, nor are they long strands of material that have been woven through a backing. This is probably done to keep the fibers completely vertical to the foam portion of the pad, so that the fingers can effectively reach peaks and valleys when used for woodworking tasks. For more information about the pad design, check out their website at Welcome to Surbuf.com.

Individually, the microfingers are thin, pliable, and bend rather easily. However, unlike wool or cotton, the microfingers do not collapse, compress, or squish into a pile. Instead, the fingers maintain their strand-shaped structure. Since they are made of a durable material, the microfingers do not break into smaller pieces as they are used.

When polishing paint with any type of pad, the face of the pad should be designed to efficiently use its surface area. In other words, if a foam pad has lines, squares, circles, or dimples cut out of (or pressed into) the pad face, less actual pad material contacts the paint surface. Certainly then, we hope these areas, devoid of foam, were designed to increase buffing performance or comfort of use, as they unfortunately decrease the amount of surface area in contact with the paint.

Another design parameter that determines how much surface area actually contacts the paint when using foam pads is the amount of pores per inch it features (commonly referred to as ppi). More pores, larger pores, thinner walls between the pores, or how stiff the walls are all affect how much foam contacts the paint during the buffing process.

In the case of the Surbuf pad, not a lot of surface area touches the paint when the pad is set upon it. As the downward pressure applied to the pad is increased, the microfingers start to bend, and the surface area of a finger contacting the paint increases. Ideally, we want as much of each individual microfinger to contact the paint as possible. Therefore, the fingers must be somewhat horizontal to the paint surface. If too much pressure is placed upon the pad, the microfingers bend so much that the tips of the fingers start to curl upwards towards the foam portion of the pad (like a fish hook, or the capital letter J). This happens because the fingers start to lie upon each other, tightly compressed and randomly bent. If even more pressure is added in an attempt to create a flatter pad surface, the fingers will intertwine with each other, and create an uneven surface that could easily scratch or scour the paint (think of the structure of a Scotch-Brite pad, and you will better understand the net effect of too much pressure). In addition, the fingers become packed with buffing liquid, and start sticking to the foam part of the pad. To ensure satisfactory defect removal, the buffing liquid should remain on the paint surface, and lightly coat the microfingers with its abrasive material.

To verify this theory, I placed a Surbuf pad on a table with the fingers facing up. Then, a 12" x 12" piece of glass was set upon the fingers. As I pressed against the glass, I could see how the microfingers reacted to varied pressures. My suspicions were confirmed. For best results, I wanted the fingers to bend, but not so much that they curled or compressed.

*On to the leveling procedure!*

Professional users of the random-orbital seem to be pairing their machines with smaller pads more frequently. For general paint polishing, I also prefer pads that are 5" to 6.5" in diameter, and thinner in overall height, rather than thicker. While there are some benefits to using larger and thicker pads, most of the time I use smaller pads for defect removal (as small as three inches in diameter).

With this in mind, I attached my 5" Surbuf pad to a Meguiar's W67DA backing plate (approximately 4.75" diameter). As I used this pad and backing plate combination, best leveling results were realized when the machine was adjusted to the highest speed setting (6,700 opm). The more I used the pad, the more I found myself lifting up on the machine to minimize downward pressure.

To eliminate this necessity, I switched to a 6.5" diameter pad and a bigger backing plate. The increased surface of the pad would better distribute the downward applied pressure created by the weight of the machine. Of course, the amount of microfingers working to level the paint was substantially increased (approximately 68%). This combination worked great; the fingers bent enough to really level the paint quickly, but left a bit of wiggle room so that if needed, I could tilt the machine now and then to better focus the downward applied pressure. A huge benefit of the Surbuf's unique design is airflow. Since the design of the pad allows plenty of fresh air to circulate between the fingers and across the paint surface, things stay pretty darned cool, even during heavy cutting.

To help keep the M105 buffing liquid where the work needed to be done, I kept the paint surface wet. A trigger bottle filled with a 50/50 mixture of Meguiar's Last Touch Detail Spray and water was used to occasionally mist the paint surface. This bit of added moisture would wet the microfingers as they rubbed across the paint, loosening a majority of the abrasive from the fibers. The inertia created by the machine would help to return the abrasive to the paint surface. While the abrasive was devoid of the buffing liquid's built-in lubrication due to evaporation caused by friction, the addition of Last Touch helped to keep the paint slippery.

The addition of Last Touch may decrease cutting ability a little, but it may actually increase leveling. Since less friction is created because lubrication is increased, the random-rotation of the pad increases. In my experience, this means that the rotational speed can jump as much as 100% at the point where the buffing liquid's lubrication evaporates. I have seen my G110 rotate the pad very quickly; my best guess puts pad rotation at eight to ten turns per second, or 480-600 rpm. Anyone that has used the Flex 3401VRG knows the effect this kind of speed has on defect removal.

So, if our pad rotational speed increases but there is a notable drop in friction, how can the pad actually level paint to a more accurate degree? My best guess is this: as an individual fiber comes into contact with a high point on the paint surface (such as the top point of a sanding scratch), it will have less time to adjust positioning once it hits the point. This means that the fiber will remain in the same position longer, so it will cut through the edge of the first point, and only change direction via deflection a small amount before hitting the next point, and on and on.

Whether this is true or not does not really matter. What does matter is how well this combination works. The pads are relatively inexpensive, and last a reasonably long time. Since the fingers are applying a rather durable and hard abrasive material, I realize that the fingers will wear out quickly compared to using them with a non-abrasive polishing liquid (or a liquid that does not contain such hard abrasive particles). But hey- if this combination can create a very level surface using a random-orbital… it is a small price to pay.

Once the paint has been leveled and all random defects have been eliminated, a final polishing will more than likely be required. Although the Surbuf pad levels paint quite well, it does seem to leave behind a small amount of curly-que scratches. While these marks are usually very fine, they are obvious. To remove them, change the pad to a traditional style foam finishing pad, and use a final polish as you normally would. If you are a skilled user of the random-orbital polisher, very little distortion of the ultra-leveled surface should occur (if any).

I hope I have explained this process in an easy to understand manner.
Good luck, and be patient when traveling through the learning curves!

*Close-up pictures of the Surbuf Pad*

I took some pics with a little 150x magnification USB camera.
I wanted to show what the Surbuf microfingers look like when they are flattened a bit.
For reference, I also took a shot of a Meguiar's W8006 SoftBuff Polishing Pad, a Meguiar's M9910 Ultimate Wipe, and a Mirka Abralon disc.

Funny thing is, my $12 Radio Shack magnifier with a built-in light works way better!
I can't figure out how to capture the shot with it, though. 
With it, I can tell if a sanding disc is a coarse or fine grit, and even if it is worn out!

In the pictures, the pointer is the lead tip of a Pentel .5mm pencil:










Shot of the Meguiar's W8006 SoftBuff Polishing Pad:










Shot of the Surbuf R Series Pad:










Shot of a Meguiar's M9910 Ultimate Wipe (used and washed several times):










Mirka Abralon 4000 grit Sanding Disc:










It is interesting to see the structure of the foam pad... Easy to see why we lose so much cut!
Not a lot of surface area to force the particles into the paint as they're being moved about.
This is why pressure changes make such a difference in cut with any foam pad.

*Chris Dasher aka PorscheGuy997's post:*

I have been messing around with DA wetsanding and using the Surbuf on the DA for a few weeks now.
In the past, I have never tried removing wetsanding marks with the DA. The rotary does such a good job that I never tried it. 
But, I did take the suggestions from Kevin and gave the Surbuf pads a try.

The Surbuf pads are very different from the foam pads we normally use.



















Because these pads are so different, they can remove defects that are simply unheard of.

Here's an example:

I DA sanded this scrap hood using a Mirka Abranet Soft 1500 disk.


















Using a 5.5" Surbuf pad and the original formula M105 on the DA, I was able to remove the 1500 grit marks. 
Although there is some deep etching, you can clearly see that the marks have been removed.



















The finish left by the Surbuf pad and M105 is a little hazed, but it can easily corrected with PO106FA or M205 on a polishing pad. 
So yes, a DA (with the right combination) can remove serious defects.

*Notes about the Surbuf pad:*


The amount of product is absolutely critical. 
If you apply too much product, it will not remove many defects. 
I found that it was best to prime the pad with product and then polish the area.
If you find that there is too much product on the surface, wipe it off the area and then continue polishing without adding more product.


The amount of pressure used can also very important.


Follow Kevin's guidelines and you should be fine.


Surbuf offers many different sizes of pads. 
The 5.5" pads were perfect for my use, but you can choose whatever size you like.

The latest testing has revealed that a 7" pad is a very good choice.
It delivers high rotation speed, serious defect removal, and user comfort.
The large size distributes added downward pressure nicely (should the user have a desire to bear down on a particularly stubborn defect).

*Use caution!*

*A word of caution: *
On fresh paint (or paint containing flex agent), there is enough applied force with this method that the paint could 'twist'.

Paint twisting occurs when the heat and friction created by the machine, pad, buffing liquid, and applied pressure combine to alter the bond between the paint, primer, or substrate it is attached to.

What does this mean?
Well, the result of paint twist resembles the sidewall of a drag slick leaving the line. I do not have a picture to show paint twist, because it is rather rare. Maybe the next time I work on a freshly painted test panel I can try to make a twist mark.

Normally, it takes a pretty aggressive combination to twist paint. 
A rotary buffer and a wool pad (or a dense foam pad) teamed with a decent amount of pressure could do it. Buffing liquids containing strong solvents increase the risk of it, too. About ten years ago I twisted a small area of paint on a bumper cladding, but I was able to sand and polish the area, repairing the damage.

In an extreme case of paint twist... the paint can actually be torn off the panel! It is rare, but I have seen it happen. A few years ago I had spent about 50 hours sanding and polishing a paint job. Someone else decided to 'touch-up' buff an small area and within a few seconds managed to twist a quarter-size piece of paint right off.

So, as with most things, proceeding with caution and common sense is an asset. End.


----------



## Kevin Brown

This is a *very* cool write-up by *akimel* on MOL, and a debate as to the "tool abuse" required to do the "KBM":

http://meguiarsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36061

Specific information about the random orbital "method" (post #9)



rusty bumper said:


> How much pressure are we referring to with the KB method...15 to 20lbs.? I've been using about that much pressure on my PC for 10 years now, and it's still running OK from what I can tell.
> 
> Interesting writeup.


*An interesting question, and one that is not simple to answer.*

Before we discuss specifics, it is important to understand that an increase in downward applied pressure is often _required_ when buffing pads are being used versus a sanding disc.

A typical sanding disc utilizes a flat, hard, and pliable material as a backing, and the abrasive grains are glued or laminated to it. These are typically referred to as *film backed discs*. An abundance of pressure is not needed (nor desired) when sanding wood or paint because the abrasive grains are already positioned tightly against each other, and the grains are resting on the same plane. It is therefore relatively easy to level the material being work on. Adding excess pressure knocks the abrasive grains loose, shortening the life of the paper. The loosened grains are often trapped between the disc and sanded surface, forcing the grains into the softest material (usually the wood or paint- ouch!).

Another type of sanding disc uses a thin foam interface between the attachment material and the abrasive side of the disc. These are typically referred to as *foam backed discs*. Often, the abrasive grains are attached to a very flexible or soft material. The soft interface and very pliable material allow the face of the disc to easily contour to the surface being sanded. Generally, no added pressure is needed for sanding with this type of disc for the same reasons previously listed. Should the user desire a bit more leveling capability, downward pressure could be increased to compress the foam. Once the foam has fully compressed, the abrasive grains will be forced into the paint. Usually, if extra leveling of the surface is desired, it is best to find a suitable film backed disc.

If added contouring capability is needed, a *foam interface pad* can be inserted between the sanding disc and backing plate. The film backed disc will still cut the sanded material more *level* than a foam backed disc because the grains are attached to a material that will not allow the grains to "push" into the material they are attached to.

Regardless the type of disc being used, one way to increase leveling capability is to use a larger stroke machine, or dramatically increase the oscillation speed. There is too much specific information about this topic, so you will have to take my word on this for the time being (this topic is discussed at length in my "paper").

Now, let us delve into the dynamics of the *buffing pad*!
The first thing to consider is that when we use a buffing pad, we are dealing with a LOT thicker foam material than the foam backed discs typically use, even with an interface pad placed between the backing plate and disc. The next thing to consider is that the abrasive grains are NOT permanently attached to the foam. Certainly, some of the grains attach, some roll about between the foam and the sanded surface, and other grains attach to the foam and then release. Finally, it must be understood that the abrasive grains are not evenly distributed. Some areas of the pad may have NO abrasive material attached to it, while other areas may have grains stacked upon other grains. The unevenly distributed material can sometimes cause microfine marring (or hazing) of the paint surface.

To minimize the possibility of hazing, the pad should be properly primed with the buffing liquid, and firm and even pressure should be applied to the machine. FIRM does not mean FORCED! Firm simply means that the pad needs to have an even distribution of pressure applied to it. This accomplishes several things. First, the abrasive grains will cut consistently and evenly when they are contacting the paint surface level to each other. Picture this: If we were hand sanding, we would try our best to keep our hand backing pad level to the paint surface so that the paper could evenly abrade the paint surface, right? Firm pressure across the pad achieves this. Secondly, we want the abrasive grains to attach themselves to the foam. Certainly, we do not desire all of the grains to be attached because the loose and rolling grains serve a purpose, too. Primarily, their movements mimic rolling little spheres (think of ball bearings). This movement helps the pad to glide along, and as the grains roll about, they contact the grains that are attached to the pad, knocking them loose, and allowing them to possibly reattach to a different area of the pad, and in a different position.

The original question was "How much pressure?!"
Again, not so easy to generalize! If a *short stroke* machine is being used in conjunction with a tall or very soft buffing pad, then the buffing pad will likely cushion or negate a majority of the machine's oscillating movement. In this scenario, a LOT of pressure would be needed _simply to deliver the machine's movements_ (this has NOTHING to do with any particular polishing procedure).

These could be considered popular short stroke machines:
3/32" diameter orbit- Metabo SXE400 or several air powered units, 
3/16" diameter orbit- DeWalt DW443, Festool Rotex RO150 FEQ, or the Griot's Garage RO (original machine), 
7/32" diameter orbit- Makita BO6040

If a *long stroke* machine is being used in tandem with a short or stiff pad, there may be no need to ADD extra pressure to the machine. The Dynabrade 61379/61384 Dual Action Buffing Head features a 3/4" diameter stroke, which is huge.

Most random orbital guys are using machines featuring a 5/16" diameter orbit. So, imagine the possible combinations!

Machines utilizing a 5/16" orbit are:
Meguiar's G100, G110, G220,
Porter Cable 7424, 7335, 7336, 7424XP
Griot's Garage (new machine)

By now, I hope it is clear why blurting a generalized "amount of pressure" is not so wise.
We have not even discussed the effects of pad diameter, but most guys know that a small diameter pad will deliver more pressure per square inch than a large diameter pad of a similar type.

I will say that if a *large* amount of pressure is going to be applied, it should be done in very short bursts only.
If enough pressure is being applied to stall the rotation of the machine, try using a different pad, a higher speed setting, a larger-stroke random orbital machine, a forced rotation machine, or a rotary machine (in that order).


----------



## GSVHammer

Wow quick reply Kevin, and lots of info'. I've just got home from night shift, too tired to read now but I'll have a browse later when I get up. Subscribed to this thread as well for updates.


----------



## Kevin Brown

I hope that you find the info informative and not too confusing.

There certainly has been a lot of "hype" about the "gold engraved tablet containing the holy grail of polishing"... but I can assure you I didn't create it!

No- I am just a detail-guy like so many of you. 

I am working on the paper as much as I can, but it flat takes a lot of time. It's not like I stop on page 26, and then continue on to page 27... I seem to tangent easily from one subject to another, work on a diagram, revisit a page here and there. Gets to be a mess at times, if you must know the truth.

Besides- there is so much info out there regarding the various "methods" already. My focus has shifted to writing in fine detail about the random orbital polisher. The bottom line is that there is no magic bullet being written about. I am writing a paper about the random orbital... pretty boring unless you are in to this sort of thing. :thumb:


----------



## toni

Now that's something that's going to keep me busy all day 

Thanks Kevin!


----------



## Kevin Brown

toni said:


> Now that's something that's going to keep me busy all day
> 
> Thanks Kevin!


I know the feeling... :wall:


----------



## Guest

WOW, quick scan of that, will come back to it later to read properly and ask question.


----------



## Kevin Brown

matt1263 said:


> WOW, quick scan of that, will come back to it later to read properly and ask question.


Cool. Yes- a lot to look over! :doublesho


----------



## Baker21

Thanks for the info on this, I have been following this with great interest along with some guideance from gmblack3.......:thumb:


----------



## Leemack

Cheers Kevin, Thanks for taking the time to post up.

Im going to get a cup of tea and read


----------



## Dave KG

The KB method - hugely interesting (from my perspective at least), as it is something that actually represents an advancement in thought, a development to yield better results that isn't just a spin of marketing with some uber new this, or fancy new that... 

This previous posts by KB make very interesting reading indeed, and form the basis for polishing methods with non dimishing abrasives such as Meguiars SMAT or the abrasives in MarkV products such as Mystique as well, or the Solo range from Meguiars... it flies in the face of a lot of "common thought", especially when it comes to pad priming, but the technique is very different and has been shown to be be hugely effective.

Many detailers are using alterations of this technique in their own methodologies - the varying of pressure in set is a common technique in my own polishing sets as it is that of many others now and a lot is based in some ways on this polishing method... as is the "Double Zenith" tehcnique which goes some way to marrying the KB techniques with more traditional Zenith techniques aimed at dimishing abrasives. 

It is superb to see polishing methodologies being opened up in such a way, and folk taking the time to truly analyse (properly) what they are doing and why they are doing it, and the posts above by Kevin Brown go a long way to highlighting the real intricacies of machine polishing and what serious knowledge and the willingness to research your method can achieve. This to me is what paint preparation is all about - not fancy waxes or sealants with big names and silly marketing, but instead some real furthering of the looks and results you can achieve through methods that actually deliver tenable results.

Keep it up, KB :thumb: Posts like this are a refreshing breath of fresh air in amongst a lot of marketing rubbish I read a lot of these days...


----------



## Top Gear Dog

Owwww, now my head hurts!!! lots of info!!


----------



## Wardy

Baker directed me to this thread, so thanks for that 

Certainly a lot to take in there, and lots to think about. Thanks for taking the time to post all of that up!


----------



## VIPER

I've only just found this thread, Kevin (other duties on here keep me from idly browsing around ), but I have to say a huge thanks for your input here so far, and like Dave said, it's so refreshing to have new avenues opened up and ways of working, as for me personally, and I know many others sometimes feel like this, detailing can get a little 'stale' and stuck in a rut.

I'll be revisiting this thread again for a proper read when I've got a little more time to devote to absorbing the info :thumb:


----------



## Gandi

Viper can this stickied?


----------



## VIPER

Gandi said:


> Viper can this stickied?


I think I will make it a sticky, but not in this section; I think I'll move it into the guides forum and do it in there :thumb:

____________________________

Now done :thumb:


----------



## Kevin Brown

Baker21 said:


> Thanks for the info on this, I have been following this with great interest along with some guideance from gmblack3.......:thumb:


You are a lucky one to deal with Bryan Burnworth aka gmblack3. He is very knowledgable.



the_knight said:


> Cheers Kevin, Thanks for taking the time to post up... Im going to get a cup of tea and read


Oh, good. I am happy to hear you will take the time! My apologies for not putting things in a tidy format. 
I just wanted to show the original poster that there is a lot of information out and about. He was right, in that, trying to find KBM info is daunting.
However- the _tone_ of the post was a bit off-putting, as I have tried to post as much information as I can (given the amount of time it can take).
Every time I post online, it is time I could/should be working on my paper!



Dave KG said:


> The KB method - hugely interesting (from my perspective at least), as it is something that actually represents an advancement in thought, a development to yield better results that isn't just a spin of marketing with some uber new this, or fancy new that...
> 
> ... It is superb to see polishing methodologies being opened up in such a way, and folk taking the time to truly analyse (properly) what they are doing and why they are doing it, and the posts above by Kevin Brown go a long way to highlighting the real intricacies of machine polishing and what serious knowledge and the willingness to research your method can achieve...
> 
> ... Keep it up, KB :thumb: Posts like this are a refreshing breath of fresh air in amongst a lot of marketing rubbish I read a lot of these days...


Dave, most of us know that you are one of the best at writing _how-to_ articles. Your comments mean a lot to me- Thanks!

Now... if the very small yet important _physics_ portion of the paper passes the _Dave_ test, I will be somewhat relieved. Physics is tough stuff, but very interesting.



Wardy said:


> Baker directed me to this thread, so thanks for that
> 
> Certainly a lot to take in there, and lots to think about. Thanks for taking the time to post all of that up!


You are welcome. 
Detailing World is SO huge- I cannot believe how many new threads come and go here!



Viper said:


> I've only just found this thread, Kevin (other duties on here keep me from idly browsing around ), but I have to say a huge thanks for your input here so far, and like Dave said, it's so refreshing to have new avenues opened up and ways of working, as for me personally, and I know many others sometimes feel like this, detailing can get a little 'stale' and stuck in a rut.
> 
> I'll be revisiting this thread again for a proper read when I've got a little more time to devote to absorbing the info :thumb:


I hope you like it all. Thank you.


----------



## WyattEarp

Very interesting. Would be nice if somebody could create a video of how to perform the technique properly for better results.:buffer: I think it would be easier to understand it by watching a video.:thumb:


----------



## calypso

Subscribed, cant wait for the finished product.


----------



## Kevin Brown

WyattEarp said:


> Very interesting. Would be nice if somebody could create a video of how to perform the technique properly for better results.:buffer: I think it would be easier to understand it by watching a video.:thumb:


Not a bad idea. It'll be a while before filming begins due to time constraints. Plus- I want to get this paper finished first! :wall:

Once the info contained in the paper is contemplated, I think there may be no need to show how to use the random orbital in the manner that I do. Most of the procedure is simply guided by adjusting the machine set-up to get the desired results. So, by running through a mental checklist and adjusting the pad (size and type), speed, pressure, and the amount of buffing liquid being applied, the cycle is then determined. After that, it is just a matter of time!

Isn't this what most of us do anyway?

My hope is that the information contained in the "paper" will help newbies in a big way (to get past the dreaded "learning curve"). 
If some of the pro's happen to garner a thing or two from the information...

_That_ would make me very happy! :thumb:


----------



## Kevin Brown

I will try to keep things updated here is additional information gets posted elsewhere. 
That being stated, here is another small thread about the "method":

http://www.autogeekonline.net/forum...mpound-polish-water-based-not.html#post261079

In reference to this question (posted at Autogeek):
_Hey guys- I've seen lots of the pros here say they use the KEVIN BROWN METHOD, just wanted to know what exactly is it???? And how does it work??_

Actual info:
_
First off, the KBM is not for everyone because most guys are more than satisfied with how a random orbital performs as used in its traditional manner. I am good with that! :thumb: Further, each buffing liquid features the manufacturers recommendations pertaining to the use of that particular product, and polishing enthusiasts should use traditional polishing methods and follow the guidelines set forth by the liquid manufacturer prior to using this procedure. I have always stated that this procedure is not for newbies and that this method is not a replacement for a rotary. Rather, it is simply an alternative method that I use which can deliver a higher degree of success (in terms of defect removal and finishing capability).

The products I've used this procedure with the most are Meguiar's M86 and M105, so that should be kept in mind. Why is there no short answer? Quite simply because the short answer gives directions only, and no theory. Is that really teaching anything?  For quite some time I just e-mailed guys that wanted to know how I was applying M86 and M105 with a random orbital because neither was officially recommended for use with the random orbital. First it was a one-page e-mail, the two, then three. As I kept chasing my tail trying to supplement the procedure, I decided to write about some of the theory behind why I thought it worked so well. Well, it ended up at twenty pages with only four diagrams to take up space. A very boring read unless a guy was truly interested in the theory behind the method!

Once it was finished (a little over a year ago), I had a few guys read it and it became painfully obvious that more diagrams would improve the paper, so I began creating them. I am still not done, and believe me- I wish I was. Time constraints have slowed the completion of the document, but the time is near. Why did I start discussing the "KBM" online? Because Todd Helme aka TH0001 mentioned he used *"Kevin Brown's methods of madness"* to polish a 1948 Lincoln Zephyr, and the inquiries began.

I am most excited about this: No longer is the random orbital looked upon as an "electric wax applicator", or as a "hazemaker". For some time it was perceived by the big guns as the sissies machine. Some rotary guys still don't like it, and that is fine. I am not writing this paper for them! 

*KBM points to consider when using a random orbital:
*
*Maximize* the polishing capabilities of the pad by thoroughly priming it with the buffing liquid.

*Minimize* the cushioning effects of the pad by applying downward pressure to the machine.

*Adjust* downward pressure to maintain some random rotation of the backing plate. More rotation is better for defect removal. Less rotation is better for final polishing.

*Clean* the pad throughout the process. Compressed air is BY FAR the best tool for the job.

*Maintain* pressure throughout the polishing cycle. This goes for defect removal as well as final polishing.

*Prepare* the pad for final polishing by priming it and then letting it sit for a couple minutes. Prior to use, remove the excess product from the pad by placing the pad face onto a microfiber towel. Run the machine for a few seconds until the excess material is removed. Then, apply small amounts of buffing liquid as needed. The goal is to have enough polish available to abrade paint away, but not so much that there are clumps of buffing liquid on the pad face or in the pore structure of the pad.

*Introducing* a spritz of water or detail spray is a no-no because although cutting power may increase, so too will scouring. Besides- wet pads are not helpful.

*If scouring* is noticeable when the buffing liquid is applied by machine but not by hand, then the pad is the culprit- not the machine. Use a different pad (size or material), or adjust pressure, speed, and amount of product until satisfactory results are achieved.

Thanks again! _


----------



## Auto Finesse

Wow loving this post, this is the kind of detailing chat we need more of. 

Iv been using PRC my self for a while now, and have got some pretty good results with it, i find using as you would a conventional polish it seems pretty poor, but i persisted with it and seem to get pretty good results now i found a way to make it work for me, i find i can finish via DA with it better than i can rotary, but obviously rotary is far better for correction with it.

Im going to go have another play with it incorporating some of your methods.

Thanks 

James B


----------



## Kevin Brown

Hi all!

Still working on the "paper", but I wanted to add this information here on DW, as it refers to thoughts about paint polishing via random orbital.

Barry Theal of Presidential Details and I recently exchanged e-mails regarding paint polishing. We thought it might be a good read. We are not recommending anyone try the methods we are discussing... we are just chatting by the water cooler, so to speak. By the way- there are TWO prominent guys over here that use the name "Presidential"... Barry Theal (Presidential Details) and Billy Aylward (Presidential Detailing). 

I copied and pasted this from another forum.

*BARRY'S POST:*
_I have been playing around alot with some new methods of paint polishing and trying to take things to another level. I had a few ?'s and thought I would contact Kevin Brown. For those of you who don't know Kevin, I had the chance to get to talk with him a few times over the last year and he is a man of integrity, knowledge, and passion. A true assest to this business.

Anyway, I have been trying to find a new way finish down paint. I'm working on a few new techniques and ideas. When I sent the below email to Kevin his reply was simply amazing and we thought this would be a thread for all to veiw. Below is my email to him then his response! Hopefully you all enjoy. Thanks Kevin I got a reply coming soon in email. _

*ORIGINAL E-MAIL FROM BARRY TO KEVIN:*
_So I finally broke down and got real serious with your method. Its been going nice. I wondered something though over the past week and began to think a little. Not sure if thats good or not. I wanted to run something by you here and see what you thought. When finishing down with m205. As a Non Diminish abrasive how do you truly get the most flawless paint possible? If the abrasive truly doesn't diminish how can there not be any super microscopic scratches?

Next I began to think about the whole jeweling thing or what I call burnishing. Working the paint with a Diminishing abrasive polish to refine the paint as much as possible to gain the most gloss. Although when finishing down with your method its looks outstanding. I began to wonder could you take it another step. So at this point I was like a kid in science class. Trying different pads and different abrasives.

What if you were to entirely remove the abrasive and use just the pad for finishing? Obviously you can't just spin a pad across the paint and expect anything. When using your method I think a big part is the lubrication from the water. Kinda like when your wetsanding the more water the less the abrasive yor paper will be. So as the search went on. I found you need a lubricant to keep the pad moving while only using your pad as the abrasive. So I moved onto quick detailers and such and found that you can finish down with Final Inspection Spray. If makes a great lube as well as cleans the paint free of the oils from the polishes. Once trying this I ran the pc at speed 3 after 2 lights mists of Final Inspection and boom I burnished paint with a pc and had amazing results. It made the paint feel clean but it had a crisp look to it. Some would think I'm nuts for this. You're a man who I'm sure a few thought were nuts when you said how about serious correction with a pc.

Anyways, ever try something like this? Does it make sense to you? Or am I just nuts? Lol. Let me know what you think._

Barry Theal
PresidentialDetails.com
717-875-8686

Hi Barry- 
I will respond section by section. 
If something doesn't make sense or seems out of place, it is because I wrote a bit at a time (then moved things around as I went along).

_"So I finally broke down and got real serious with your method. Its been going nice. I wondered something though over the past week and began to think a little. Not sure if thats good or not. I wanted to run something by you here and see what you thought. When finishing down with m205..." _

Nice to see you playing around with polishing. Not a lot of guys take the time to think about what is happening during the polishing process. However, I think it is a _must_ for guys that want to be _*better*_ than _very good_. Let's chat!

*Unless the paint is "brand new" (freshly sprayed and not touched) there is bound to be scratches, whether the human eye can see them or not. * 
This is an opinion- but I suspect not too many guys would disagree. If you fall into this category, then we see eye to eye so far. So yes- there are microscopic scratches present. For the sake of argument, let's assume that we are always refining the scratched paint surface (either by smoothing its shape or eliminating big scratches and replacing them with smaller ones).

To bolster this opinion, we can certainly look at the effects that glazes, oils, and fillers have on our perception of the paint surface. After all, if the paint is perfectly smooth, would we _*see*_ a better reflection if we "topped" the paint with some sort of transparent product (the "topper")? We may see more _depth_ because we have added thickness to the surface (so the paint color would be literally farther away from the top point of the glaze or wax), but not more accurate reflection. In fact, unless the topper was self leveling, we may see a decrease in reflective accuracy.

*We probably should consider what these scratches look like. *
Are the scratches shaped like a "V"? Or, are they shaped like a "channel" (channel meaning that the shape would be similar to a square minus the top line)? If the scratches are "V" shaped, our buffing abrasives are more readily able to polish the sides of the scratch and smooth the points where the top of the scratch meets the paint's uppermost surface. These scratches are certainly the most common, as a piece of grit or hard material usually cuts into the paint like a knife blade (thinly at first, then wider as the scratch deepens). If the scratches are channel shaped, the scratch is not as easy to hide via smoothing, so more paint must be removed in order to eliminate them. These scratches are usually created when an object is pushed across the surface, without an ability to dig deeper (such as when somebody places a cardboard box on the truck and slides it). Any dirt between the box and paint either rolls between them, or the dirt gets attached to the box and acts like a piece of sandpaper. Better yet- imagine that the teeth of a hair comb made of steel is rubbed against the paint, and the ends of the teeth are square instead of pointed.

*Now... let's discuss our abrasive materials.*

*In most cases, buffing liquids and pads should be considered abrasive* (we'll stick to foam pads for this discussion). 
Since most pads are designed to contour to the painted panel, they tend to ride upon the painted surface rather than dig in. Their action is similar to what happens with paint cleaning clay. Unless the shape of the individual membranes are aggressive or sharp (or if someone decided to mix abrasive particles in with the foam slurry), the foam will create scratches that are fairly consistently shaped, and with similar depths. This assumes that the pad is not falling apart, or the walls of the membranes are not sticking together and then flipping upon each other, creating bulky clumps). If we add a lot of downward force to the pad in order to compress it and the foam can NO LONGER reshape to the panel (or the foam becomes reasonably compressed), it will then create inconsistently deep scratches (mostly due to panel shape). So, final polishing is typically done with super soft and pliable pads, devoid of harsh membrane structures. By harsh, I mean bumpy.

_"As a Non Diminish abrasive, how do you truly get the most flawless paint possible?"

"If the abrasive truly doesn't diminish, how can there not be any super microscopic scratches?" _

*You asked about non diminishing abrasives.*
In the case of the superfine stuff being used these days, the individual particles generally create a smaller and more consistently shaped scratch than the materials used to make the pads. So, you might want to think of these in this manner. Abrasive, yes. But not detrimental to the surface. If the abrasive particles are evenly dispersed across the pad and they rub across the paint in tandem (tightly packed against each other, not clumped, and on the same plane) you should see a great result. It is likely that if we could grab just one abrasive particle and push it across the paint surface, we likely would NOT be able to see the scratch it created.

_"Next I began to think about the whole jeweling thing or what I call burnishing."_

*So, what about "jeweling" or "burnishing"?*
Those are terms that essentially define the final polish step to me. When I used to do a five or six step rotary session, I personally did not have names for each step (I just paired pad with paint with process). Then again, I was buffing using multi-step processes prior to the time when there was any Internet-based forum discussion about polishing, so I suppose if I was explaining things by "steps" and using names for the steps, I might have referred to them by similar names.

What you guys are basically doing is trying to use the pad's abrasive capabilities to polish the paint in the least invasive manner, while still affecting the paint surface. A coating of liquid applied to the buffing pad's membrane-like structure and the paint surface itself might act as a "buffer" (in this case meaning to lessen or moderate the impact of something). Think of it this way: First, the liquid coats the surfaces, so only the tallest points not within the layer of liquid are fully exposed or mostly exposed.

To better visualize this, think of the ocean and the land above the sea level on Earth. In this case, let's slice off a small piece of Earth and place it on a very large table (a square mile will do). You are in charge of water management. Your goal is to keep the water in the ocean, and the dry land dry. The water will stay on the table unless you take action to remove it via bucket, squeegee, push broom, or via heat (thus evaporation).

Just as in reality, your ocean covers most of the Earth's surface. If you wanted to push-broom or evaporate the ocean away, it would be a massive undertaking. Now, imagine a storm rolled in and wet all of the dry land. Although the land would be wet, the layer of water would be very thin (compared to the depth of the ocean). Heat from the sun would evaporate the thin layer of water in a hurry, and you could squeegee away any water lying upon hard or flat surfaces (you would push it right back into the ocean). The remaining uneven land surfaces holding pooled water could be either scooped away or soaked up with absorbent materials.

This scenario is very similar to what we are doing when we polish paint using a buffing machine paired with a foam pad. The pad acts as a push broom or a squeegee to some degree, and the heat generated by the friction replaces the sun to aid evaporation of the liquid. If the pad and paint is coated with a liquid that acts as a barrier to interaction of the two, it is effectively burying some of the paint. The majority of the pad face cannot physically touch the paint, so only the high points are being affected by the pad motion.

*In reference to water or lubricating agents in general: *

Since liquids are not easily compressed (most times they are deemed to be not compressible for simplicity sake), the layer of liquid might cause the pad to "float" or ride atop the liquid to some degree. If the pad also features a layer of liquid spread across it, the net effect might be one that sees only minimal contact between the pad and paint surface. Consequently, only the highest of points of the paint surface are being affected, and the newly formed paint surface would lack sharp or inconsistently shaped features.

To envision this, imagine that you are going to skip a rock across a pond of water, and the water is at rest (so its surface is basically flat). The pool of water has small pieces of grass sticking through the top, and you want to cut a path through the grass so that it is flush with the water level. You sharpen the edge of the rock so it will cut through, and you make sure when you throw the rock, it has a lot of rotational speed.

This scenario is very similar to what is likely occurring during your "burnishing" step when you polish paint with a finishing polish. In this case, the pond water represents the liquid covering the paint, the grass blades represent the high points of paint that your pad is going to "cut through", and the rock represents your buffing pad. Not a perfect analogy, but I hope you get the gist of the comparison.

"...Working the paint with a Diminishing abrasive polish to refine the paint as much as possible 
to gain the most gloss (burnishing)."

*Not necessarily. *
This assumes that the abrasive, once fully diminished, will be smaller in size and more consistently shaped than the current crop of non-diminishing micro-abrasives used in products like M205. Besides, what about abrasives that do not attach well to the foam membrane structure very well? What if someone came up with a particle that was mostly smooth, except it featured a buffering agent that allowed only the tiniest points of the particle to protrude and possibly attach to the pad? Most of the particles would have to be pushed along the paint surface by the pad. The remaining loose particles would either be positioned between the pad and paint (rolling between the two), or they would simply be squeegeed across the paint by the pad's membrane-like structure. Interesting.

_"What if you were to entirely remove the abrasive and use just the pad for finishing?"_

*Could you use a buffing liquid that does not contain abrasives and just use the buffing pad to reshape the paint surface?*
Sure! As long as the pad is as previously discussed... as long as it does have some abrasive capability... and as long as the guy using it keeps it clean and understands how it interacts with the surface.... then a quality result could be realized. As with all other products used to polish paint, one paint-type will respond better than another, so it is something to keep in the arsenal but would likely not deliver the results you might be hoping for on most paints. Again- if you see great results, then more power to you. If Final Inspection works well, a softer pad (or a softened pad) paired with water as your short term lube might yield similar results.

_"When using your method I think a big part is the lubrication from the water."_

*Not sure if you are referring to using the rotary or using the random orbital here.* 
While water certainly seems to alter the cut, it usually results in a bit more haziness of the surface. I have written about using a spritz of water to increase the cut with the rotary, but do not generally recommend implementing it with the random orbital. Do I personally do it? YES, but not always. I am a stickler when it comes to keeping my pads clean (which is probably one of the top reasons I tend to see better polishing results than the next guy). If the pad is not kept clean (especially when using a water spritz), the abrasives and paint residue tend to pack onto the surface of the pad or into the membrane structure, and stay there. A big reason for this? Typically, there is not a lot of centrifugal motion occurring (because there is less high speed rotation of the pad), so the residues tend to stay where they are compared to using the same setup with a rotary.

"Kinda like when your wetsanding the more water the less the abrasive your paper will be."

*Are you referring to a hydroplaning effect, so to speak? *
I think you are meaning that if too much water is present between the sandpaper and paint, then the paper essentially glides atop the water until enough escapes. The correct amount of water? Water would be present in the valleys between the abrasive particles, and a minimal amount would be present between the points of the particles and the paint. Enough to float away abraded paint residue. I think we are on the same page here.

*Now consider this: What if you were to use only sandpaper to polish the paint?*
You would start out sanding with a paper than features large particles first, then once you leveled the surface sufficiently, you would then use papers featuring finer particles. This process would continue until your eye could not discern any surface defects. By using sandpaper, you would have created a very leveled surface, especially if you paper was not flexible from one point to the next. Most panels we sand or polish are not laser-level, so we need to utilize papers that can conform to the panel. We therefore need some flexibility, but only enough to allow the paper as a whole to contour to the panel shape. If the paper changed shape every time a piece of sanding grit encountered a high point or low point, we would only succeed in thinning the film build without evening the surface from one point to the next. Again- this is similar to how paint cleaning clay operates, except the abrasives stay level to the surface because the clay contours to the surface. The clay and its abrasives have a very hard time digging in, so true leveling is not going to happen. But- can you imagine how accurate the reflection would be if we polished the paint via sanding rather than use a pad and abrasive?!

It could be pretty stunning. For the most part, the paint surface would feature a very smooth looking surface, one that would reflect accurately. Think of a typical orange, but imagine if it was a smooth metal sphere that had been painted. If we progressively sanded the surface, we would certainly see a consistently shaped layer of paint, when compared to an identical orange that had been polished using a buffer, pad, and buffing liquid. The only standout defects might be tracers that had not been thoroughly removed during subsequent steps, but their would be no high points, only valleys.

*We could get a similar type finish with machine polishing if we could spin the pad fast enough. *
Heat is our biggest problem. Next, the inability to see the paint through the buffing liquids could lead to disaster. The abrasive particles that were able to attach to the pad would move at the speed of the pad, effectively acting as a sanding disc. The remaining loose particles would be pushed along, eventually tumbling and adjusting disposition. In a way, they might act as little spheres (think of ball bearings), and they would either be forced into the paint or slide across it, grinding the away at the paint surface. They might also act as a hard barrier, effectively negating any pad/paint contact. You've seen this for sure- lots of guys refer to it as "gumming". Gumming either occurs because of what has just been outlined, or because the pad cannot "squeegee" the product from the surface. Instead, the pad simply rolls over the product.

_"So I moved onto quick detailers and such and found that you can finish down with Final Inspection Spray.
It makes a great lube as well as cleans the paint free of the oils from the polishes."_

*You mentioned that the Final Inspection cleans the surface (removing the oils) while acting as a lube. *
True, to a point. The "oil & water do not mix" dynamic certainly applies to a degree. The Final Inspection lifts or displaces the oil (moving it away from the surface and the pad via centrifugal force to some level), revealing clean paint and pad surfaces. The Final Inspection would also act as a lubrication until it evaporated (more rapidly than a typical petroleum or other lube material). It's just like when we spritz the paint with water when using a rotary and a wool pad. The pad is minimally cleaned because some of the attached abrasive particles loosen, the paint is cleaned (to some degree and dependent upon many things). It also wets the fibers, making them pliable again, eventually allowing them to straighten and pack tightly against each other (effectively increasing the amount of wool present in any measured area, such as a square-inch).

Does it make sense to you? Or am I just nuts? lol. Let me know what you think.
Barry Theal

*Not nuts at all.*
I suspect that in the future we will be utilizing some pretty incredible stuff. 
Perhaps we'll have buffing liquids that are sprayable. They will contain very fine, hard particle abrasives. The pads will likely have pockets that can release small amounts of moisture so that the abrasives can be worked longer before they dust away.

We may even see a point when the pads are impregnated with the abrasive particles (which will be super hard, like diamond dust), and we will spray a lube of some sort upon the surface. This would be ideal, because all we would need to do is clean the pad with compressed air during their use. Once the session ended, we could then wash them to remove stuck-on contamination. The only dusting we would encounter would be remnants of the pad and the residues we buffed away.

Your turn to let me know what you think. 
If this all makes sense, perhaps we could/should post it to a forum, as I think people would enjoy the read. Kevin


----------



## Kevin Brown

*Flex compatible method?*

This information was posted in response to the question:



07 z-oh-6 said:


> Is this method applicable with a Flex 3401 Thanks.


Well, much of it is, but since the Flex does not have an issue with rotation since it is forced, you will want to back off the pressure.
Otherwise, that machine is going to steer itself all over the place! So, I believe that with the Flex, your pad choice is very important.

Thinking things through here on pad choice. All of this is opinion, rumination, contemplation. Time to split some hairs, dissect stuff. Theorize, so to speak.

We could use a good discussion about foam pads, anyway! 
So, pads for the Flex, eh? Well... rather than getting specific, I would like to talk about foam pads in general.

A *thin* pad would work better than a *thick* pad for the purpose of transferring the the machine's 5/16" eccentric motion _through_ the pad so it can efficiently work the paint. Not much need to worry about pad cushioning slowing the offset rotation of the pad, because it is force driven. A *stiff* pad would probably cut better than a *cushiony* pad, but with added stiffness comes less contouring of the pad. To counteract this problem, we would normally add more downward pressure to force the pad to shape its face to the panel being polished. Unfortunately, when we add downward applied pressure to the Flex, it tries to "steer" the machine in all sorts of directions.

As I see it in my mind... 
The ideal *defect removal pad* for a Flex would be one that would easily compress so that it could effortlessly contour to the panel shape. 
This way, there would be no need to increase downward pressure. If we only need to use a normal amount of pressure, we can avoid the _steering characteristics[/] of the machine when downward pressure is applied. Most pads that compress easily feature very thin membrane walls, and lots of pores per inch (PPI). Lots of tiny pores, easy to compress... sounds like a finishing pad, eh?

But we shouldn't just look at a PPI rating because less PPI does not necessarily equate to any[/] specific performance characteristic. To clarify: Suppose two competing pad manufacturers offer foam pads that spec out at only FOUR pores per inch. One design might offer very thin walls and large pores, while the other might have very thick walls with tiny little pores.

The pad with *thin walls and large pores* would EITHER allow more product to pack into the membrane-like structure OR allow an increased amount of side-to side wiggling movement of the pad. Huh?

If we *prime* the pad using buffing liquid to fill the space between the pad's memebrane-like walls, and the walls were stiff enough to trap the buffing liquid, the abrasive material would be moved back and forth across the paint surface in a somewhat controlled manner. Some of the abrasives would slip away and roll along the surface as the pad moved. Likewise, some of the material already on the paint surface would be whisked about and end up in the pad. By moving the abrasive in and out of the pad, contaminated particles and paint residue are essentially diluted via mixing with the fresh buffing liquid. This effectively extends the life of the liquid before the onset of saturated contamination. Among many other things, pad priming increases the usable area of a foam pad. It also creates what amounts to a hard-barrier, slowing absorption of the "liquid" portion of the buffing compound (this helps control pad saturation). After all, the newer generation of abrasives are chock full of tiny hard particles that are able to pack tightly together. Considering this, we might conclude that a rather hard surface is created between the membranes, so *leveling* capability will be increased.

If we *do not prime* the pad using the buffing liquid (thus leaving the void area open), then the pad walls will bend. This movement may allow some of the walls to contact the paint surface. Eventually, abrasive particles would attach to the walls. They would likely have increased cutting power because they are attached and therefore traveling at maximum speed (the same speed as the pad is moving). To counteract wall distortion, we could apply more pressure but we do not know if the added pressure will result in a closing of the walls, so this could result in a zero sum gain. Regardless the outcome, this may not be the best way to use this pad because our goal was to avoid adding pressure in the first place.

It should be noted that since the walls are so thin on a pad of this theoretical design, not a lot of abrasive particles would be attached to the face of the pad. For this discussion, the *face* is the portion of the pad that is actually TOUCHING the paint. What might the net effect be?

If a particle is attached to a pad and not able to dislodge, it is moving at maximum speed, so cutting power would be at its peak. As paint is abraded by its movement, some of the paint is likely to stick to the particle. If the material is soft, it may not be such a big deal. However, if the particles are hard and crunchy (such as would be the case with oxidized paint, or paint that has particles of dirt embedded), we could create more defects.

A potential problem using a thin walled, large pore pad such as the type outlined as a defect removal pad is this: If you are using an abrasive-laden buffing liquid that is designed for rapid paint removal (a cutting compound), then the pad has a tough time pushing its way through the particles that have mechanically attached to the paint. Further, if the buffing liquid is a thick consistency or has a LOT of abrasive content, the pad simply cannot push its way through built-up liquid that is stuck to the paint surface without deflecting its shape. What generally occurs is often referred to surface gumming, which is an easy way of identifying the fact that the pad is gliding over the buffing compound rather than pushing through it.

Compared to a thin wall, large pore pad, a foam pad with *thick walls and small pores* would not allow as much buffing liquid to enter the membrane-like structure of a foam pad. If the pad was a closed cell design, it would take even LESS product to pack the small pores. Well, guess what? Many of the newer generation foam cutting pads are similar to this design! granted, They feature WAY more than four pores per inch. The biggest points to consider are:

1. Wider walls mean more abrasive particles can attach to the face of the pad.

2. Less product is needed to thoroughly prime a similarly sized pad with buffing liquid because the closed cell design (also referred to as non-reticulated).

3. The buffing liquid will not migrate through the buffing pad as quickly as a thin walled, large pore pad.

Sounds like a real winner for the purposes of removing defects.
There are some issues associated with this design, but a lot of guys are seeing great success with similarly designed pads. In general, if two pads are made of the same foam material, but one is open cell while the other is closed cell, you will generally notice an increased working temperature of the pad because less airflow through the pad is likely, and the denser material will not cool down as quickly because there is more material to cool. In addition, you will likely notice that the rebound action of the pad will be slower, too. Finally, once you decide to wash the pad, it will take a lot longer for it to completely dry. Look around and you will see some posts attesting to this fact.

It should be noted that I am not referring to any particular brand of pad throughout this post. Terms such as "thin" or "thick" in reference to wall thickness, and "cushiony" or "stiff" in relation to pad resiliency are non-specific. My hope is not to necessarily point out a specific "ideal" foam cutting pad because preferences and techniques have a large effect on pad performance. Paint condition, buffing liquid type, and many other factors can change the performance of a pad, too. For specific recommendations, guys that use the Flex all the time are your best bet in terms of getting close to an ideal pad. Hopefully by reading this post you can use the information to better dial in the performance of any foam buffing pad for any specific polishing task._


----------



## Kevin Brown

*Does paint really "dry out"?*

Here is a topic that was discussed via e-mail, and ended up on another forum. Not necessarily related to any particular method, but I though it might be okay to add it here. If not, I am happy to have it moved.



akimel said:


> _A few days ago I asked Kevin Brown this question: Does car paint dry out? I expected him to respond with a two sentence answer. Instead I received a lengthy response from him. He has given me permission to post his response here on TID. Enjoy! _


***

Al-

I think that is a great question! Not an easy one to answer, though.

Hope you don't mind... I am sending your question and my response to my buddies Todd Helme, Chris Dasher, Bryan Burnworth, Bob Willis, Paul (the other pc), and Tim Lingor. Perhaps they can give their opinions on the matter, or correct me if I am way off base on my theories. I do not have the scientific education to discuss things like electrons, atoms, and covalent bonds (and on and on and on!)

Here is my take on the subject:

Some guys would certainly argue that petro solvents definitely "dry out" paint over the long haul. If fact, that was the credo of *z*ome reall*y* well known wax co*m*pany when they first launched their paint pr*o*duct *l*ine. I am not doubting nor agreeing with the opinion.

We know that things oxidize, and paint is no exception. But can it oxidize throughout the paint, not just on the surface? I think that the answer is yes.

Automotive paint will allow certain materials to soak into it, and then eventually evaporate. We read about paint swell all the time. A guy polishes paint, it looks great for a day or two, then the scratches magically reappear. I have even seen a car that had water transfer through the clear coat layer of paint. Magnetic signs were attached to the car. It rained one day, and after the storm had passed, the car sat out in the Las Vegas sun. When the signs were removed, water entered the paint and was trapped between the clear and base coat. It was milky white and transparent . Jason Rose recommended that the lady take her car to a body shop and have them heat the door using infra red lighting in hopes of evaporating the water. It worked!

Although this situation does not necessarily support the fact that the paint moistened and then dried, it does confirm that the paint on that car had an ability to allow liquid to enter its structure and then release it. Of course, I am a realist, and I seriously doubt that if we were able to peel a piece of paint from a panel and then place droplets of water on top of the paint, the water would start dripping through the other side. I am just thinking things through here, without the benefit of all the proper scientific terminology.

Instead of thinking about paint as we see it, we should liken it to a structure- any structure, that has an ability to contract and expand. How about the fibers of a wool pad? I have been thinking about the nuances of wool, cotton, and microfiber a lot lately, so we will go with wool.

I was actually pondering wool fibers and how they are shaped. I remember reading about lambswool seat covers (a long time ago), and how wool the fibers were essentially hollow (think of a typical drinking straw). The article mentioned that this was how wool was able to whisk away moisture (such as sweat). I have not confirmed this information, nor am I disputing it. Perhaps it is true, perhaps not. Likely, the fine wool strands that make up wool as a whole have some void area between the smaller fibers (that make up a fiber), and moisture gets trapped in the air pockets between the fibers. By allowing wool to break the large puddles of moisture into small puddles, the moisture evaporates at an increased rate because:

1. More water surface area is exposed to air, so the evaporation rate is increased.

2. The heat residing in the fibers helps to accelerate evaporation, and because the water is more evenly dispersed across a larger area, so the fibers don't cool as quickly.

Therefore, the wool fibers do not literally soak in moisture and then swell. 
They are simply holding onto the water via mechanical attachment.

Next point: When wool pads are dry, clean, and spurred, they are relatively fluffy.

Structure certainly must have something to do with the fluffiness, but friction between the fibers must have a lot to do with it, too. When a pad is washed and then spun-dry (such as when we mount a wool pad to a rotary and pull the trigger), the individual fibers are able to collapse, and they remain somewhat straightened. This leads me to believe that due to friction, the fibers retain a straightened shape. Consequently, the fibers pack more tightly against each other, and we generally see an increase in cutting power. Likely, cutting power increases for two reasons:

1. Instead of lots of very thin fibers that are easily bent and can easily reshape as they encounter an obstacle, we end up with tightly packed and straightened fibers. Since they are now tightly packed against each other and have less air space between them, they cannot move about as they could before. Consequently, they do not easily deflect when they encounter obstacles, so they tend to better push through those obstacles.

2. We see an increase in kinetic energy from the larger fibers because they are moving in tandem, effectively moving as one mass. The net result is more leveling power.

Anyway- I could go on and on about pads and liquids, but I won't. Back to "dried out" paint!

Perhaps the term "dry paint" should be considered "dry" or "dead" when it:

• Loses elasticity
• Can no longer contract and expand
• Can no longer flex
• Does not allow liquid to permeate or penetrate its structure

Could elasticity ever be restored? Or does the paint change forever once its original level of elasticity is gone?

I think the latter is true with the technology available today. I do not doubt that "feeder oils" or other liquids could revitalize the uppermost portion of paint, but I am not sure how long lasting the effect is. Glazes, waxes, sealants- they all can form a protective barrier upon the paint exposed to the environment, but they do not protect paint in any other way. Does extreme heat cause oxidation? Seems to me that it could if any reaction takes place during the heating or cooling process. By oxidation I am referring to the true sense of the word, not just when oxygen causes a "drying" or "slow burning" of a surface or item.

If we had a solvent or a gaseous process that could find its way through the paint, then perhaps the areas of the paint that used to be voids OR the areas that have lost their ability to flex could be restored to their original condition or shape. With what we have available today, anything that could find its way into and out the backside of a layer of automotive paint would likely destroy it before real restoration occurred. Acetone is a good example. Definitely acetone could swell paint, but if left to soak in it, the acetone would eventually cause the paint to fail in some manner (peel, dissolve, or dry out via oxidation's slow burning process). Therefore, I suppose that if a filling in of the "space" throughout the paint structure is actually able to occur (for lack of a better term I have to use the word space... and I refuse to use the term "pores"), a solvent that could penetrate into these areas might extend the longevity of the paint... assuming it is not causing the problem in the first place. Can you imagine the drying effect acetone would have if we were able to pump it throughout a paint structure? I can envision collapsed links of paint, slowly revitalizing, opening up on a molecular level. Then, since acetone evaporates at a pretty quick rate, it would leave open space, simliar to what might be present when the paint was first sprayed. At this point the structure has been restored, but what about flexibility? I'd bet that the restructured paint would "look" as it did originally, but it would either BECOME very brittle, or continue to BE very brittle.

The best thing that could happen to paint in the future would be technology that allows reduction versus oxidation (way above my scientific education level). This would involve the use of exotic metals instilled in some sort of coating (paint or powder coat, for instance). Seems doable if the financial benefit was there for some high tech company to pursue it. Paint that does not oxidize!

I think the closest thing we are going to see to it in our lifetime is spray on liquid glass:

http://www.physorg.com/news184310039.html

CAN YOU IMAGINE?!

Kevin Brown


----------



## matzagrin

I here.

I found this post very usefull! I'll try this method soon, but I have une doubt.

How often should I "re-prime" the pad? Before each pass? If so, don't you spend lot's off polish?

Thanks in advanced


----------



## zckid

Can easily print the whole stuff and bind it as a book..

i'm still learning

the most informative post i guess


----------



## Kevin Brown

Happy to see that these posts have drawn nearly 16,000 views! 

While that may not seem like a lot compared to many threads, I am happy that DW has allowed it to be in the Detailing Guide.

Appreciate all the kind words, guys. Thanks! :thumb:


----------



## calypso

Does this mean its nearly done?


----------



## Kevin Brown

calypso said:


> Does this mean its nearly done?


It'll be another month or so before I can spend some time on it.... Work, work, work. :wall:

It *is* close to finished, however. Thanks for the interest! :thumb:


----------



## Kevin Brown

*Buffing Pad Diameter Comparison Chart*

_With so much chat pertaining to pad diameter, I decided to post this chart.
I made it for use in my paper, but it could sure come in handy now. 
It compares *pad diameter*, *surface area*, and shows the *percentage of increase* between the most popular pad sizes._

Small pads are great for focusing work on a small area.
They are especially handy when we wish to concentrate machine motion and applied pressure in order to efficiently remove defects.

Larger diameter pads can be beneficial for final polishing, since they can be used longer before they load up with buffing residue. 
This can be the difference between a pristine finish, or one that is mildly marred with ultra-fine hazing.

Even a minor change in *pad diameter* makes a big difference in *surface area*.










More food for thought. Enjoy! :driver:


----------



## RandomlySet

looks like a lot of info here to read.... something to do at work tomorrow


----------



## Kevin Brown

This was posted on another forum, so I thought I'd drop in here. A lot of guys using M105 with the random orbital and having problems with very short working cycle. This is often referred to as "flashing", meaning that the lubrication has evaporated away almost immediately.

This was in response to this post:



314wolf said:


> What do you mean by "Flashing"?


It means that the lubricating agents used in M105 "evaporate" quickly.

*This does NOT happen as rapidly as people think.
*Instead, the abrasive particles used in M105 ATTACH to the buffing pad readily, so the assumption is that the particles have "broken down" or that the lubrication is GONE.

Nopers, not usually the case.

For the guys that choose NOT to PRIME the pad prior to using buffing liquids, they are more susceptible to having the liquid ingredients soak into the foam or wool- effectively removing their ability to control dusting, to lubricate the surface, and to keep the abrasives rolling freely about.

When you PRIME the pad using the M105 (or any buffing liquid containing abrasive particles for that matter), this one little detail does SO many things to improve performance. Here are three of the MOST important.
*
1. By priming the pad using M105, you are effectively increasing the surface area of the pad that is in contact with the paint. * 
Since the foam material is porous, by filling in the pores, you are creating a bridge that allows additional abrasive to set upon. Best guess and depending on the pad material, you may be gaining an additional 30% to over 100% increase in usable surface area!

*2. By priming the pad using M105, you are creating a "hard barrier", effectively slowing the absorption of the liquid ingredients of the compound.*
Never forget- abrasive particles are HARD. The abrasives used in M105 are aluminum oxide... are teen-tiny (a very technical term)... and rather refined, so they pack tightly against each other. When this occurs inside a pore of a foam buffing pad, it can block the tunnel-like structure of the pad, creating what amounts to a dam that slows the absorption of liquid and abrasives through the individual pores.

Not only does this keep the ratio of liquid versus particles at their optimum performance level, it extends the buffing cycle.

In addition, it minimizes the potential for pad saturation. As many of us have experienced, once saturation occurs, the pad loses cutting power, it gets heavy, and the machine feels as if it is a bit out of balance.

*3. By priming the pad using M105, you are keeping the accumulated mass at the face of the pad.* 
This allows the pad to work as intended by keeping its purposely designed cushioning free of excess buffing liquid throughout the pad.

Open cell pads allow air to travel through them rather easily, whereas closed cell pads do not. Of course, air is able to move through a closed cell pad, but at a much slower rate.

When the air tunnels (pore and tunnel structure) are clear, air can travel freely between these tunnels. This means that the pad can compress, rebound, and twist as it was designed. Fill the pore structure full of abrasive or liquid, and guess what? Everything changes! Air does not flow as easily, so compression and rebound slows. The pad gets hot and stays hot, because the buffing liquid is drastically impedes air flow, and also HOLDS the heat inside the pad.

*Crazy stuff. * Perhaps too technical of an answer, but it is accurate and it is WHY "flashing" doesn't raise its evil head when you PRIME the PAD. 
I could go on, but most folks will probably not even make to this line!


----------



## Kevin Brown

Just added a thread discussing how *machine stroke size* affects overall performance:

http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=186770


----------



## msa1712

Thanks Kevin, cant wait to try your method !!


----------



## Kevin Brown

msa1712 said:


> Thanks Kevin, cant wait to try your method !!


Thanks... hope it all works out. :doublesho


----------



## Kevin Brown

For reference, a link to a whole lot of interesting info:

*KBM - Pad Priming and Supplemental Wetting Agents*

Happy reading!


----------



## Kevin Brown

*Hand sanding vs. DA sanding...*

This was taken from another forum discussion pertaining to the differences in hand sanding and DA sanding. The original poster was wondering if he should hand block first, then switch to DA and sanding discs. A lot of good points there, too:

Sand by Hand or Machine?

Here's my input:



transamfan said:


> I usually start my sanding with 1500 on a DA. Sometimes I have a little more orange peel in some areas vs others so I have to spend more time sanding there to get it out. It seems like in these spots I end up with a bit of a ripple effect when looking at reflections once I get it all polished up. I assume this is because although the panel and paint are flat, the clear is not due to the sanding with the DA. I am thinking about starting my sanding on this next car with 1000 on a block to get all the orange peel out and then moving to the DA. Will I be ok to go with 1500 to get the 1000 scratches out you think, or maybe 1200? Maybe 1000 to start with is too much? By the way, I plan to use Megs Unigrit 1000 and then I'm gonna try the Norton Dry Ice system on the DA....


*Now we're talking.... THIS is an incredible thread!!!*

*Leveling* in the sanding world means to minimize variances in the high and low spots of the sanded surface. The more level the surface, the more accurate a reflection will be. This is easy to see in a typical swimming pool. If there's nothing disturbing the water, then the reflection will be pretty accurate. If the wind kicks up or someone is in the pool splashing about, the reflection is not as accurate.

I think this is understood by most folks. Orange peel removal isn't what we're discussing, but rather, creating a consistently leveled surface across a long range or large area is the goal.

*I agree that hard blocks, or long blocks, typically excel for leveling.*
There are specific and logical reasons for this.

In theory we could replicate similar results using a random orbital sander, but man, you'd have to be _really_ good with a machine to do it. Plus, you'd have to be open to the idea of making a customized backing plate and interface pad.

Let's get to the fun stuff, and cover some basics for the guys that are somewhat new to this.

*A sanding block or backing plate that is hard can also be flexible.*

Materials such as balsa wood, plexiglass, glass, steel, and aluminum are *hard*. I have personally used, seen other guys use, or heard of other guys using these materials to make sanding pads.

Poke any of these materials with a sharpened pencil and the lead will break with ease, leaving the materials unaffected, or only marginally affected. This assumes there is enough thickness to withstand the assault, and most sanding blocks or backing plates are thick enough.

If the material is *thin*, it has the potential to *flex*, bend, or twist. 
With the exception of glass, I think most of the listed materials will bend or twist with relative ease. As an example and to give you a visual, a typical metal ruler can bend or twist, yet handle the onslaught of a poke from a pencil lead. In fact, if you wrapped a sheet of sanding paper around a flexible metal ruler, you'd have the makings of a simple yet effective sanding block!

If we decided to use a thin steel ruler as a sanding block, we certainly could. Ideally, we would glue a long foam block onto the back of the ruler, and use the block as a handle or gripping area. For the sake of discussion, let's continue on with this idea.

We could use PSA (peel and stick adhesive) sanding sheets, or cut an appropriate length of sandpaper from a sanding roll and attach it to the ruler. I personally haven't seen too many varieties of paper at the higher grades we are discussing, so we must improvise.

We could use a thin coating of spray glue to attach sandpaper sheets to the ruler, or attach lengths of paper via duct tape, and glue that to the ruler. Of course, the paper should be trimmed to the width of the ruler, and it would be critical that the individual sheets of paper be positioned to tight tolerances in relation to each other- no overhang, no large gaps.

_Note: readily available long blocks feature clamping systems that allows us to attach lengths of sandpaper to the block at each end. Other blocks are hook and loop compatible, while still others are smooth faced to easily accept PSA style papers._

Once we found the best way to mount the paper to our ruler, we could use any length ruler as a hard but flexible sanding block. 12", 18", 24", 36", and even 48" rulers are readily available.

By using the longest ruler that would work on our sanding project, we could affect a whole lot of peaks at once, and level them to the same overall height. These areas, when polished, would reflect in tandem. Even if we didn't completely remove all of the orange peel, we would still see a more accurate reflection across the surface.

*A sanding block or backing plate that is soft will more readily contour to the nuances of a surface.*

If we took our ruler block and mounted a thin piece of foam to the sanding side of the ruler and then attached the sandpaper the foam, it's almost guaranteed that we would not be able to level the surface to the same degree as a ruler without the foam.

But, if we wish to make our sanding job easier to accomplish... or if we're working on panels that do not allow us to use ruler-length sanding blocks... or if we would rather not create a laser-level surface... or if the surface needed sanding only to remove very fine texturing and dirt nibs (including dirt in the lower lying levels of an orange peeled texture), then we would probably be happier using a sanding block featuring resiliency, squishiness, and conformability.

This is why most hand sanding blocks are short and soft.
Human hands aren't all that long either, so there's a bit of logic behind the sizing.

With all this being said: *Could a DA machine outfitted with a sanding disc level as well as hand sanding?*

Certainly, but only as good as an equal length hand block, and the block would have to feature the same characteristics (hardness, stiffness, cushioning, etc.)

In other words, if we are sanding with a 6" diameter disc and using a machine featuring a 5/16" stroke, then our sanding disc will effectively *level* an area measuring 6-5/16" in diameter. This assumes we don't move the machine at all, but instead hold it in place as it runs.

If we removed the disc from the backing plate and placed it onto a hand sanding pad made of the same material as the backing plate, and then moved the hand pad no more than 5/16" in a back and forth pattern that mimicked the movement made by a DA sander, we would create a very similar sanding result.

But, if we happened to be using a backing plate or hand pad that offered cushioning, resiliency, or contourability, the machine would likely offer up a bit more leveling ability.

Simply put, if the machine moved the sanding disc at a higher rate of speed than your hand could, there would be less time available for the pad to adjust its position in relation to the paint surface. To more easily understand this, imagine driving over a very bumpy road at 5 MPH, and then again at 50 MPH. There's simply not as much time for the suspension to react to the bumps, so the tires would likely not be as well planted as you traveled across the bumps.

*Oh man, I hope it is making sense so far.*

O-kay. Some diagrams that may help, and more discussion.

*This one compares a long block to a short and long stroke sander.*








If you want to see a clearer shot of it, I have a pdf version on my site:

Machine Stroke- How It Affects Sanding and Polishing Performance

The diagram is on page 9. 
I don't usually link it because it is a site that sells stuff.
MODS- if I am not supposed to put a link, feel free to remove it.

*The type of backing material a sheet or disc features can also affect leveling.*

To be clear, the _backing_ is the piece of material that the sanding media is attached _to_.

Several types of backing materials are used to make backings for discs, and the type of material is a BIG deal in terms of how the disc performs.

In general... if we have two discs featuring identical backings, except one has a backing that is thicker than the other, _and we are using a backing plate that is soft and cushiony_:

The disc with the *thinner* backing will _level_ to a lower degree, but contour to a _higher_ degree.
The disc with the *thicker* backing will _level_ to a higher degree, but contour to a _lesser_ degree.

*The harder the backing plate, the less of an issue backing thickness becomes.*

Now, here's where things get a bit tricky.
Some discs feature a piece of foam placed between the backing material and the attachment material. Most times, the foam increases contourability at the expense of leveling ability. But really, the characteristics of the sanding disc's backing determines how much an effect the foam has on sanding.

*Super thick and stiff backing? 
*The disc may flex well, and follow curves and complex panel shapes, but it may not contour to every nuance of the surface, such as orange peel.

*Super thin and pliable backing?
*The disc may follow every nuance of the surface and follow curves and complex panel shapes, but may not level the paint surface.

*What if machine speed is maximized?
*The effects of foam may be minimized.

Check out these discs featuring foam:

_*Mirka Abralon:*
Tremendous contouring ability, wide range of grades. These are a kick to use, can be used at high or low speed. for me, low speed is better because the sanding pattern is smooth, and the abrasive particles stay attached to the disc longer. Higher speed offer a tiny bit more leveling, and can keep the disc cleaner, as rotational forces fling debris from the disc more readily than slow speeds.








​Magnified shot:







​
*Mirka Abranet Soft:*
Excellent contouring ability at low speed, fantastic leveling ability at high speed. Compared to discs that use paper or film backings, the net material allows water to pass through (like treads on a tire. So, you can sand with water, use higher speed if desired, yet hydroplaning is not an issue.








​Magnified shots:







​
*Meguiar's Unigrit 3000 Foam Finishing Disc:*
Unmatched finishing capability... it's like having thousands of super soft abrasive squeegees gliding across the paint! Virtually no ability to level, but at this point, you should be refining the surface to shorten buffing time rather than worrying about additional leveling.










*Some diagrams comparing film, net, and cloth backed discs. These are also on my site, and are clickable.
*
When should Abralon be your first choice?

All about Mirka's Net Mesh technology.

























_​
*About film or paper backed discs:*
Film or paper backed discs generally feature maximum leveling potential, but when used with water, they tend to float or hydroplane rather easily. This leads to inconsistent sanding results, as some areas may be sanded perfectly while others are barely affected by the sanding disc. Once the water is displaced, the disc, oftentimes spinning at a rapid clip (due to a lack of frictional resistance) makes a crash landing atop the paint surface. This leads to pig-tailing, gouging, or scouring.

I hope this info didn't miss the mark, or stray too far from it. 
I find this all to be so interesting, and there are lots of things to consider.

The biggest thing that limits our ability to use hard-backed backing plates has to do with user technique. If while sanding we happen to tilt the machine even slightly off kilter, the edge of the disc can dig into the paint. This can create some pretty dastardly sanding marks, especially if we're using coarse grades of discs. That's why most backing plates made for sanding discs tend to be soft and pliable.

Now... think you're pretty good at handling a machine?
Why not make your own backing plate/interface pad combo?

Get a stiff backing plate, and attach a foam interface pad to it. Then, get ahold of a piece of Plexiglas, cut it to the size of the disc, and attach Velcro® hook material to both sides. Slap on your disc of choice, and get to sanding!

The foam interface would help to minimize user-applied tilt variances, so if you happened to get the machine a bit off kilter, the interface would compensate for it. This setup would be ideal for flat panels, but terrible for curved or complex shaped panels.

That's all I've got! For now...


----------



## Kevin Brown

*Interface pads, and how they affect sanding*

The sanding discussion becomes a discussion about interface pads:



David Fermani said:


> ...What's your thought on using an interface pad for heavy or the initial leveling? Pro or Con?...


*David*

If leveling can be done without one, meaning that I don't gouge the paint with the edge of the disc, I'll do it.

It seems that almost always, I end up using an interface pad.
It's just too darned hard to keep a machine totally level.

When I use Abralon, I rarely use an interface pad, unless the panel shape requires one.

If I have a soft backing plate handy, I can use Abranet Soft or Unigrit Finishing Discs without one, too.

But interface pads are as important to sanding with machines as backing plates are to buffing pads.

*Does that answer the question alright?*

Moving on.... I was reading your interaction with *John Kleven*, and he has *very* valid points.
So do you.

But here's how I try to break things down, to be truthful and honest when giving advice.

If I have to beat YOU and JOHN in a three way sanding and buffing contest, with the goal primarily being a very leveled surface... how would I do it?

Short and quick:

If the car had a lot of flat or long gradually curved areas, I would initially sand by hand using the longest and hardest flexible block I felt comfortable using. For this I'd use Unigrit Finishing papers, unless I needed 800 grit or coarser. Then I 'd hit it again by hand with a finer grade of Unigrit by hand. Then I'd test buff.

If it was curvy like a Beetle, I'm going to level by hand with a short foam block, and I might even use sanding DISCS and a round foam backing pad instead of film backed sand paper. My preference for discs in this realm would be Abranet Soft disc because the net mesh backing retains some rigidity while offering up pretty serious contouring ability. The Unigrit 1500 grade sanding disc is nice, but only available in 1500. There are some very nice film backed discs, but I prefer the net mesh.

My other option?, I'm going to use Abranet Soft on a machine and a variety of interface pads. I'm going to tilt the machine a bit on the aggressively curved stuff, sanding with very light touch while I'm tilting to avoid edge digging, use low speed but enough speed to keep the disc rotating (barely), but use maybe only half of the disc (the other half may be touching a bit, but there would be so little pressure it wouldn't be all that effective on that area).

If the paint is rock hard, I'll step out the sanding and use finishing discs.
For the final sanding step, I'll opt for the Unigrit 3000 Finishing Discs.
Otherwise, I'd use Abralon 2000 & 3000, or 2000 & 4000.

If time is a factor, I'm going to be as aggressive as I can on the first cut, jump quite a bit higher on the second cut, and test buff.

If I can get things looking great with a Meguiar's Microfiber Disc and a random orbital, I will. I'll save time or versus a rotary on soft paint. Not always, but I'd risk it.

If the paint is hard, I'd use a 3" wool pad and a 3" rotary mostly. 
M101 all the freaking way. Um, I mean M105 all the freaking way.

Why a small diameter pad?
It doesn't take nearly as much compound to keep the pad primed, it's easy to keep things wet with a mist of water, and there's way less dust because of it. There's no magic to keeping the dust level down... it's just that if I have to apply less product because it's kept under better control, I need less product. So, there's actually less waste.

If I need more speed or am looking for a bit more leveling ability, I'll switch to a 7" wool pad. I like the nap and length of fibers on the Meguiar's So1o pads.

If things are going REALLY great, and I'm feeling ****y (which I never really do when I sand or buff), I'm gonna level the poo out of the paint with a Surbuf pad, because I suspect that I've got more faith in the leveling ability of _that_ pad than anyone, and I KNOW I'll outlevel the best guys out there using a rotary and a wool pad, because I'll spend a few minutes to figure out the ideal speed/pressure/diameter combo. Well, it almost always out levels a rotary and a wool pad.

But like I said, I need to be feeling pretty good... an ice cold Shirley Temple, the _real_ kind, Ginger Ale and REAL pomegranate juice. Some Stevie Ray Vaughan, some Kenny Wayne Shepherd, some Blues Traveler, some Beastie Boys, some AC/DC, and even some NWA... (look it up).

For the rush, you know?

And a pocket full of watermelon and green apple Jolly Ranchers, so I don't gotta spend a lotta' time feeding my face with licorice or chips. Or Nutter Butters.


----------



## Kevin Brown

*The future of sanding...*

The discussion turns to the future of sanding, and sanding theory:



Barry Theal said:


> Kevin,
> 
> So we talked about paint leveling on the bodyshop side of things.
> What if we look at paint leveling on the detailing side of things?
> 
> Generally speaking Im not talking about a level surface as in orange peel removal, but as in complete scratch and defect removal. The old theory of compounding with a wool pad and then refining to remove the wool the coming back to remove holograms has obviously been changed with product development and game changing abrasives, whether they be liquid or foam.
> 
> Let me talk about my experience with the Abralon system that you highly speak of.
> One thing I should say is that I should have purchased it sooner and listened to you.
> 
> So were are working on a car where the general defects (swirls, RIDS, waterspot etching, and so on).
> The defects are deep and will take some time to level. Is it safer to sand them or polish them?
> 
> From experience, I find that certain abrasives will safelty remove less clear then the old school traditional methods. What if the abrasive is Mirka Abralon Discs, 4000 grit, on soft paint? The 4000 grit may remove defects cooler and safer than buffing. On the flip side of things, when working on harder paint, 4000 grade Abralon may not remove the swirls, and a heavier disc may be needed.
> 
> In theory, paint is being leveled no matter which way you like to do it. What if we could changed the rules of thinking even further and almost entirely eliminate polishing, or at least knock it down to only one step (which can be done currently).
> 
> Whats stopping us as detailers to look into finer papers likes 6000, 8000, 12000 grit? Obvious factors that may come into play would be interface pads, applied pressure, rotation speeds, etc. What would you find this to be safer and and a whole lot more fun to do?
> 
> Lets take a paper like 12000 grade, and add water to the mix.
> Do you think it's possible to hydroplane a film disc across the paint to create a almost final shine? Just something running through my head. Could we see the day when polishing liquids be virtually unnecessary?
> 
> If you said a few years ago you could correct paint without a rotory I would have laughed at you!
> Now today I find my rotory collecting dust more and more.
> 
> So when does the madness stop. Is it these crazy thoughts that become a reality into game changing products? I guess only time will tell.


Barry, your mind runs as fast as your fingers type.
Let me break this down in sections, and give my opinion that way.

I hope we can agree to reserve the term *leveling* for those instances when we want to minimize the peak and valley variances of a paint surface. This way, discussions about leveling or truing of the surface won't get overly confusing for newbies.

*At least for the remainder of this discussion:*

To *level* a surface means to minimize the peak and valley variances of the surface.
Orange peel, waviness, and long, level sanding marks shall be categorized here.

To *refine* a surface means to minimize or eliminate unwanted elements from the surface other than those listed above.
Elements include scratches, pinhole-sized divets, or etching marks (isolated low spots).

These definitions are as distinct as I can think to make them right now.

I wish to make the distinction because we could feasibly refine or eliminate the imperfections from an orange peeled surface without eliminating its curvy peaks and valleys landscape.

_In other words, if you said to me:

Barry: Kevin, see that sandy desert out yonder?

Kevin: Yes Barry.

Barry: If I asked you to *level* it with this flat shovel, how would you do it?

Kevin: I would take shovels full of sand from the flowing hills, and place them into the valleys until the surface was flat.

Barry: And if I asked you to *refine* the desert landscape, what would you do?

Kevin: Well Barry, I would take my flat shovel and pat the sand flat until it all of the sand grains were tightly packed together.

Barry: You're hired!_ :dig

You asked, "... Whats stopping us as detailers to look into finer papers like 6000, 8000, 12000 grit, effectively allowing us to use a super fine polish to remove the sanding defects.

You have some already, but to answer the question as to whether or not it would work efficiently...

Nothing is stopping the potential, except technology, and a company that sees the potential for financial gain in making a product for this specific purpose.

Suppose _you_ made sheets and discs for us?
Better yet, what if you only made sanding squares, 1"x1"? :mmph:
Call 'em Barry Squareys or something like that.

Hey, squares make it easier for me to explain this stuff. :typing:

What might occur as we use the squares? 
What would be the factors that limit sanding performance?

I'm thinking this through as I type, so take it all with a grain of salt. :hairpull

No scientific data or research going on at my desk. ray1:

These two factors pop into my head: *Pressure points and void areas.*

*Pressure points.*

Instead of grading Barry Squareys by *grit size*, you use a rating system that identifies your sheets by *how many grains* each one uses.

These are _perfect_ grains by the way- all exactly the same and shape. 
Pyramid shaped I suppose, with the base of the pyramid attached to the square.

Taking into account the machine's weight and user applied pressure, your engineers determine that each sanding square can withstand 1 pound of downward pressure before the sheet crumbles.

In real-world sanding, too much pressure causes sanding particles to dislodge.
We don't have a problem with sandpaper crumbling, thank goodness for that!

Therefore:
The 4-grain square would have .250 pounds of pressure atop each grain.
The 8-grain square would have .125 pounds of pressure atop each grain.
The 16-grain square would have .0625 pounds of pressure atop each grain.
The 32-grain square would have .03125 pounds of pressure atop each grain.
The 64-grain square would have .015625 pounds of pressure atop each grain.
The 128-grain square would have .0078125 pounds of pressure atop each grain.

This goes on and on to whatever degree you want it to.

But, there comes a point when there's very little pressure placed upon each grain, so cutting power is virtually nil. In fact, each grain barely cuts into the paint.

Suppose you place the maximum amount of grains you can possibly fit onto your sheet, and the number is virtually uncountable. In fact, the surface is so tightly packed with abrasive pyramids, it _feels_ as smooth as a piece of glass. You magnify the face of the sheet under a microscope, you realize that the sanding face of the sheet even _looks_ as smooth as a piece of glass!

*Void areas.*

With so little space available between the grains:

Where is the abraded paint going to go?
If you happen to wet sand, where is the water going to go?

This could be a problem, eh?

If the residue immediately suffocates cutting power by coating the abrasive pyramids, your sanding squares would offer very short lived cutting power.

If the water had no channels to enter, the sanding square would simply hydroplane until the water was eventually pushed aside.

Would there be a suction problem, causing the square to stick to the surface like a suction cup?

Interesting. Perhaps not a great analogy, but I hope that it makes a little bit of sense. At some point, it seems to me that we'd have to use a mesh backing, or a pin-holed film backing, or some sort of material that would allow water and abraded paint residue to evacuate the area between the disc and the paint.

Vacuuming? A slurry and pump system? Perhaps.

In the case of sanding discs, maybe the abrasives could be lined up like straight spokes on a wheel? 
Perhaps curved in a spiral fashion? Or just in straight and parallel lines? Hundreds or thousands of them?

I think someday we'll see discs and buffing pads that work in a manner similar to stone polishing flexible diamond discs. Hard yet flexible pads impregnated with diamond grains, or some sort of abrasive. Envision the way paint cleansing clay works.

We'd use them along with a mist-on lube, or water.

You asked, "Is it possible to hydroplane a film disc across the paint to create an almost final shine?"

You're wondering if we could somehow fill the low points of the paint with water or some other filler, so that only the high points remain, and the disc would only affect those points?

I think we discussed something similar to this a while back, in this thread:

Some Conversation Between Kevin Brown and Barry Theal

In that discussion, I mentioned this:

_"In reference to water or lubricating agents in general: 
Since liquids are not easily compressed (most times they are deemed to be not compressible for simplicity sake), the layer of liquid might cause the pad to "float" or ride atop the liquid to some degree. If the pad also features a layer of liquid spread across it, the net effect might be one that sees only minimal contact between the pad and paint surface. Consequently, only the highest of points of the paint surface are being affected, and the newly formed paint surface would lack sharp or inconsistently shaped features.

To envision this, imagine that you are going to skip a rock across a pond of water, and the water is at rest (so its surface is basically flat). The pool of water has small pieces of grass sticking through the top, and you want to cut a path through the grass so that it is flush with the water level. You sharpen the edge of the rock so it will cut through, and you make sure when you throw the rock, it has a lot of rotational speed.

This scenario is very similar to what is likely occurring during your "burnishing" step when you polish paint with a finishing polish. In this case, the pond water represents the liquid covering the paint, the grass blades represent the high points of paint that your pad is going to "cut through", and the rock represents your buffing pad. Not a perfect analogy, but I hope you get the gist of the comparison."_

Oooo-kay! 
A long day of product testing and a bleep load of typing... it's now 2:42 a.m.
Time for quick five mile jog, change the oil in my truck, and off to bed.[/quote]


----------



## Kevin Brown

*More about interface pads...*

And finally, back to interface pads.



David Fermani said:


> One more question since we're on the subject of interface pads. I'm under the impression that they can "water down" the sanding strength of the paper by as much as a 500 grit loss (or more). Do you know of one that is less parasitic or effective and still keeps the safety aspect intact?


A question that begs a discussion, rather than a specific recommendation.
That being said, take a look at these:

Mirka 9166
Mirka1066F

Now, off to the races!

There are two possibilities that I can think of right now that might cause this to occur.
So perhaps knowing the cause, we can minimize the occurrence.

First, the sanding disc's backing material generally dictates how much the interface pad affects sanding efficiency in the way you mention.

To paint a visual of this, lets take it to extremes.

If we were using a *sanding disc* that featured a *hard and non-flexible backing material* such as *cast iron*, the backing would remain rigid, regardless the characteristics of the interface pad. So, the only affect the interface would have on sanding would be limited to how it affects the machine's action.

If we were using a *sanding disc* that featured a *soft and flexible backing material* such as *Saran Wrap*, the backing would follow the oscillations and fluctuations of the *interface pad's* attachment material.

If we were using an *interface pad* with either of the aforementioned discs, and the interface pad featured a *hard and non-flexible material* to which its Velcro hook material was attached, then the characteristics of the *sanding disc's* backing material would be *irrelevant*.

Does this make sense so far? If not, perhaps read it once more before moving on.
It may make sense to me as I write it, but it may be perceived by you differently.

Not good if this is the case.

Okay, back to the real world of sanding discs and interface pads.

In our realm of sanding, a typical disc uses either a film or paper backing. These backings are rated using a letter system to identify the film's rigidity. Discs with an _A-weight_ backing are more pliable than those featuring a _B-weight_, and so on. Film and paper discs with _E-weight_ ratings are pretty darned stiff; those with _F-weight_ ratings can even be used as grinding discs! Cloth discs use a different lettering code (J, X , W, T, M)

This letter system is not used to identify the rigidity of other types of backing materials.
So, for products such as Mirka Abralon and Abranet Soft, and Meguiar's Unigrit Foam Finishing Discs, we must rely upon manufacturer claims and our own experiences to better understand how these discs will react to the effects of an interface pad.

Lets compare a film backed disc to something like an the Abralon disc.

Abralon discs don't typically _need_ an interface pad, because there is a layer of foam built right onto the back of the disc. These discs contour exceptionally well because the backing material isn't flat or continuous like a film disc, but instead is composed of a very pliable fabric:








If there happened to be a small protrusion of the sanding surface, the Abralon disc would be more apt to contour over it, rather than rifle straight through it. AND- when the disc did contour, the immediate areas around that point on the disc would be barely affected, so they would continue to level to the degree that they had before. A typical film disc would not be able to do that.

Now... if the foam material used on the Abralon disc is softer, more resilient, and more contourable than the foam and components used to make the interface pad, then disc's foam will affect the sanding results immediately. So, let's assume for the moment that this is the case, and our interface pad features a stiffer and thicker foam. For lack of a better term, it has a stiffer suspension system.

If there is enough applied pressure or enough of a surface variance present to "bottom out" or compress the foam mounted to the Abralon disc, then the interface pad's characteristics will kick in.

If the opposite is true, that our interface pad's suspension is softer and more pliable than the Abralon disc's foam, then the face of the Abralon disc will remain relatively flat until ample pressure or variances of the sanding surface are large enough to affect it.

In the end, an interface pad can affect sanding aggressiveness, but usually does so in a manner different than some might think.

Wouldn't it be cool to have a disc that allowed us to individually place our abrasive particles into a hard, pin-holed backing?

Each abrasive grain would be attached to a pin head, and you could stick the pin in the pin-holed backing.

I'd get a few thousand of the pins with the built-in adjustable coil springs, so I could dial in the "interface affect" I'd need for the job. Or, for flat sanding, I'd just use the non-springed pins.

Hey, we already have Barry Squareys™... How about the *Davidisc™ Sanding System*? 
Put me down for some 3" and 6" backings, and 10,000 pins with the infamous Davidisc™ Diamond Tips!

If you want more info, I have a page on my site about interface pads: More About Interface Pads


----------



## Kevin Brown

Cut down backing plates. This works very well for foam pads, too.



Kevin Brown said:


> ...To mechanically optimize the DA Discs, the pad must be supported to the outer edge.
> Since Meguiar's does not currently offer a backing plate exactly the same diameter, I cut down a Meguiar's W68DA plate to the same size.
> It cuts very easy- a pair of scissors will work...


I used a carpet razor knife to cut these plates, then sanded the edges using 80 grit and then 150 grit sandpaper. 
The studs were chucked in a handheld electric drill, and I pushed the knife into the foam as the plate was spinning. 
Then, I sanded in the same manner. Make sure to wear eye protection!

*This is the Meguiar's W68DA, backside shot:*









*This is the Meguiar's W68DA, face shot:
*









Notice that the Velcro® does not cover the entire plate. 
It was designed for the 2.0 Soft Buff pads. 
I cut the pad down to within a couple millimeters of the Velcro®.

*The cut down version is set atop the uncut version:
*









*This is how it looks once the backing plate is mounted to the disc:
*









*This is the recommended W67DA set atop the cut down W68DA:
*











Kevin Brown said:


> ...A stiffer plate delivers maximum cut, but they're a bit harder to cut down.


I used a Mirka 106GG because I had some in stock, and they have proven to be bulletproof for me:

*Mirka 106GG:
*









*The cut down version set atop the uncut version:
*









*This is how it looks once the backing plate is mounted to the disc:
*









Obviously, if you use the stiff plate, you'll need to be careful on curved surfaces. The W68DA is soft, so even it it happened to contact a surface accidentally, damage potential would be comparatively low.

But!- for leveling, severe defect removal, for defect or sanding mark removal next to body trim, etc., and final polishing, the discs have delivered much better results for me when they are supported to the outer edge. My best guess would be somewhere in the 30% improved range for cutting potential, and an immeasurable amount for finish polishing.

This post is being added to the Kevin Brown Method Thread as well as the Pad Priming and Supplemental Wetting Agents thread, both located in the DW Detailing Guide section.

Good luck!


----------



## Matty77

Food for thought!


----------



## NatB79

I know this is a very old thread, but I was reading up on Kevin brown and his method. 
I had to laugh a bit, there was a mass of information passed on in that thread. A very strong reply to the OP voodooking, who funnily enough didn't repost again for the whole 5 pages hahahahaha
Sorry just made me laugh a bit. Nothing like being shut down. 
But on a serious note. Very very informative


----------

