The saga continue, and many comments unrelated to my replies or Dr.G.'s reply were added to the thread and those in combination with my latest contribution may result in the thread being shut down. AG does have a very sensitive "closed" button for anything that goes off the thread subject or when it starts becoming an exchange between disgruntled participants. In case the thread gets deleted I feel I should post it here
There is quite a bit of wrong information and misinformation here about chemistry and coating science which can be due to lack of knowledge or supporting some product/brand! First of all it takes 5 to 10 times more energy to break an ionic bond than a covalent bond but an ionic bond easily dissolves in water. So it is completely wrong to say an ionic bond is a weak bond but one should rather say that ionic bonds are easily hydrolyzed.
Second, as far as covalent bonds, they are not all created equal. So to say all covalent bonds are the same is totally absurd. Some covalent bonds hydrolyze and break in presence of acids and bases such as Si-O bonds (silica, nano-coatings, siloxanes, etc.). Therefore, if nano-coatings/nano-sealants or other sealants are exposed to alkaline degreasers or acid pre-soaks such as those used in a touchless wash, they will dissolve over a short period of time. Without using a booster product, these type products last 1-2 years if they are not exposed to acids or caustics and 1-2 months if they go through weekly touchless car washes or cleaned with alkaline degresers.
Other covalent bonds such as N-C-O bonds in urethane clearcoats and Si-C bonds such as those in Optimum Coatings do not hydrolyze or break in the presence of acids or caustics and can go through hundreds or touchless car washes without any change in film thickness or performance. If these covalent bonds dissolved over time, then all car manufacturers would tell their customers to avoid car washes altogether! However, you can remove factory Clearcoats or Optimum Clearcoats by abrading and paint removers which are specifically designed for that purpose.
Of course, at the end of the day all the theory should be put to actual testing for proof. While all the nano-coating products you have mentioned do not show durability of over 2 years even without extreme testing, Opti-Coat has been tested over and over in the past 7 years by independent users throughout the world and the results have always been the same showing no change in performance with normal washing or even with detergents or alkaline and acid cleaners used in touchless car washes. Here is one of the reviews with extensive details from a couple of years ago:
http://www.autogeekonline.net/forum...um-opti-coating-durability-test-review-5.html
Last but not least, you claim that no coating or resin can bond with existing Cleacoat which is only true with nano-coatings and should not be generalized due to the lack of knowledge. I can list a dozen different resins that we make which can readily react with Urethane linkages or acrylics but that would be proprietary information that we do not want to share.
Well David, I am thrilled that you took the time to reply but I have to say that I am truly disappointed by your answer. You had an opportunity to shed "real" light on the subject, but instead of taking the high road in using your expertise to clarify what continues to puzzle the detailing community (regarding coatings) you instead chose to lower yourself to "defensive posturing tactics", attempting to discredit me and minimize my contribution(s) through some runaround "non-answer". Although you did do a good job in avoiding to answer the question I had, I sure hope that you will have a change of heart and will decide to take this opportunity to reply with answer to the questions. Your history of posting on AGO is small but I've always enjoyed reading your informative replies, but this post is unlike your prior contributions, and I am truly disappointed.
So before getting to the questions lets try and evaluate your rebuttal, and see how the "expert" shines!?
#1 You first statement of purpose seems to indicate that you would "right a wrong", by exposing supposed wrong information I dare to share. So where did I miss the boat?? I've identified ionic and covalent bonds and reactions which created stable molecular matrices, which we both seem to agree on. I DID oversimplify that ionic bonds were "weaker" than covalent bond.... but I believe you agreed that it is a "spot-on statement" considering the fact that you came to substantiate that ionic coatings can be hydrolyzed in water (over time) and through the acidic pre-wash in touchless car washes (whereas covalent coatings done, making them "relatively" stronger). It IS an oversimplification and it was meant to be a transition into the real question of "permanency". Just to clarify it one more time, I am NOT the expert!, and to question my intelligence with such statement as "lack of knowledge or supporting some product/brand!" is just plain wrong, and definitely an unjustified low blow, unbecoming the expert that you are. I am not here promoting a product, so you can take your speculative theories back. I am actually the first to mention that I would not support ANY product that would distort the truth.
#2 Again, in your first statement you attempt to discredit me by making references to some "supposed" statements of mine. I've never mentioned that
ALL covalent bonds were created equal, so please give me some credit. Why would you again go on the attack saying, and I quote, " to say all covalent bonds are the same is totally absurd"?. I do have to say that I hold you (a well educated expert) to higher standards. So far your rebuttal has done nothing to elevate the discussion, has it? In one breath you say that I am "completely wrong" and in the same breath you explain the chemistry which makes my point. I did
theorize on the reaction of the coating to a catalyzed urethane clear coat, but I think I bolded and emphazised that it was a theory, and that I had no substantial knowledge of the "proprietary chemistry". Instead of making accusatory statements, I would encourage you to quote me directly, and stop inferring my intentions. I am disappointed that your attempts to enlight the readership of this beautiful forum consist of attacking me and my intelligence rather than talking about the science. You seem to think that I am "promoting" my product, which is so far from the truth, since I don't have a dog in the chase. I did discuss quartz based coating because this is what I researched more extensively (please read my original post). Did I knock down your product line? Is this why you are on the defense? I did make a reference to marketing shananigans of using the work permament, which is used by OPT, so is that why you chose to single me out?
#3 You did an excellent job in describing that we should not depend on the theories alone, but that we should actually have testing. We could not agree more, however I was calling for repeated controlled and reproducible testing which could stand up to scientific scrutiny. You and I know that single case studies do not contain enough to pass statistical significance, unless you had multiple tests on multiple vehicles using the same processes. Do I believe in the long term viability of your product, yes! Does this experiment make me change my position on the word "permanent" nope! David Fermani is a solid guy and great detailer, so I won't toss his contribution in the trash, and did seek to read his follow up observations on the Autopia forum, but it is an OBSERVATION study. Do we have standard testing processed for hydrophobicity, scratch resistance etc... that can pass inter and intra-tester validity and reliability? I could offer a CQuartz Finest thread providing observations that this nano-coating will show durability in excess of the 2 years you claimed they could not survive (Your quote: "While all the nano-coating products you have mentioned do not show durability of over 2 years even without extreme testing."). Would anything be provided by me sharing a link to another "observation study" other than making my reply a "wiener measuring contest"? Neither of those link passes scientific scrutiny, since they are subjective measures rather than objective testing.
I've re-read your post a half dozen time, at least. I have to say that after getting over the posturing, and the disappointment of your "non-answer", I was left wanting more. I think everyone reading my posts (and disclaimers) can extrapolate that the chemistry I shared was
basic at best and was not intended to be a big "exposee" on the actual chemistry of coating. It was however a springboard to question this misused of the word "permanent". So keep harping on the fact that more exist to chemistry, and that not all bond are created equal or that I don't have all the proprietary information (which we all agree on), or skip over this part and answer the true question about the word permanent. I provided the dictionary definition of the word permanent so that we all played the same game. Just to reiterate:
Per·ma·nent ˈpərmənənt Adjective. Lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.(emphasis added)
Since you do have a dog in the race, what is OPT's position on the permanency of their products? To remain unchanged permanently the coating would need to be
- Impervious to chemical exposure
- Impervious to thermal exposure
- Impervious to mechanical exposure
Will OPT coatings survive heat in excess of 1000 degree? Will it survive HCL, H2SO4, NaOH etc...?? Will it survive mechanical abrasion?? How much?? I did see the 9H claim on your site as well. Is that also based on the pencil test?? OR is that on the MOHS scale of mineral hardness?
In researching coatings in general I haven't seen any torture test, for
any coatings. I did see some nice YouTube video of nano-sealants and coating being lite on fire using lighter fluid but that (in my opinion) also falls under the banner of deceptive marketing, since in my opinion it offers nothing but a "pretty show". Since no official independent SCIENTIFIC testing seem to be available the only thing I could offer to elevate this discussion we were having was basic chemistry which dictate that there are NO PERMANENT BOND. Before you come back and state that not all bonds are created equal I will make the disclaimer that some chemical bonds are stronger than other, but I will stand by my statement that no permanent bond exist.
I know full well that some will support my post because they see the value in the questions I asked, and some will find offense that I am posturing back to the great Dr. G. Before concluding this post, I will offer that OPT coatings do offer great chemical resistance, scratch resistance, UV resistance, and has been part of my arsenal since I started offering coatings, so don't believe that I am dogging the product line. I do have my ultimate preference but it is a preference based on subjective appreciation of application, look, feel, and function and not because it was shown to be scientifically and statistically better, since no such study exists.
