Why not use Meguiar's technique for nanotechnology?

[dhsv2]

Why not use Meguiar's technique for nano technology?

[dhsv2]

Re: Why not use Meguiar's technique for nanotechnology?

what is the diffrent between the Smat and Nano technology ?

[Don]

Re: Why not use Meguiar's technique for nanotechnology?

Like I said on the other forum, it's probably a case of "A rose by any other name ..."

[dhsv2]

Re: Why not use Meguiar's technique for nanotechnology?

????????????????????????

[Don]

Re: Why not use Meguiar's technique for nanotechnology?

????????????????????????

Think terminology. I'd be willing to bet that SMAT and NANO are just different names for the same thing.

[The Guz]

Re: Why not use Meguiar's technique for nanotechnology?

I'm still trying to understand your first question

[Don]

Re: Why not use Meguiar's technique for nanotechnology?

I'm still trying to understand your first question

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Why not use Meguiar's technique for nanotechnology?

We've never really been comfortable using the term "nano" or "nano technology" to describe our SMAT abrasives even though others would probably jump at the chance to do so. Why? True nano-tech is actually the manipulation of material on a molecular level and, even though our SMAT abrasives are indeed incredibly tiny when compared to more traditional abrasives tech used in other compounds and polishes, they aren't technically that small. Could we call it "nano abrasive" technology? Heck, we could call it anything we darn well please, but if it's not technically accurate then we'd just be jumping on the latest jargon bandwagon, and we're just not huge fans of that.

We get that some people love buzz words, and "nano" is pretty buzzy these days. We love technology too, but we also like the idea of being upfront and straightforward with people. Besides, just because something makes use of actual "nano tech", does that automatically make it somehow better? One of our competitors introduced a wax just 3 or 4 years ago that supposedly touted nano technology. It only lasted in the market for a couple years and it's no longer available. None of our waxes utilize any sort of "nano tech" but Ultimate Wax has been a huge success for the past 5 years, NXT Tech Wax 2.0 for almost a decade, Gold Class for 20+ years and Cleaner Wax for 42 years.

So, jumping on the bandwagon might be great at first, but when the wheels fall off what do you do?

[dhsv2]

Re: Why not use Meguiar's technique for nanotechnology?

What is the size of the SMAT abrasives?
Thank you

[Jbirk]

Re: Why not use Meguiar's technique for nanotechnology?

What is the size of the SMAT abrasives?
Thank you

LOL, probably nobody but the chemists who make it know... Obviously, it is different depending upon which product. Either way ALL of the SMAT products are smooth to the touch (as were all the previous generation stuff too)... Nothing is really gritty these days.

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Why not use Meguiar's technique for nanotechnology?

What is the size of the SMAT abrasives?
Thank you

That is proprietary information, but suffice it to say that they are small enough that you can not feel them in solution. But it isn't JUST about size when it comes to SMAT abrasives, it's also about hardness and uniformity of size and shape that allows SMAT abrasives to do what they do - cut like crazy and still finish to a very high level.

[pcray1231]

Re: Why not use Meguiar's technique for nanotechnology?

1st time post (sorry). I'm a newbie in terms of detailing and techniques, but regarding his question, I am a materials scientist (metallurgist), and thought I could add something to this conversation.

Anyway, the MSDS says that these products contain alumina. Alumina is a common polishing agent for preparing metals for microscopy work. We just mix it with water, but standard preparation is that you prepare the sample via wet sanding followed by 6 micron (more often diamond pastes), 3 micron (diamond or alumina), 1 micron (alumina), and 0.3 micron (alumina). There are other polishing agents you can get (colloidal silica, for example), but these are most common, and these sizes of alumina powder are available wholesale.

Obviously, that's for polishing bare metal, and Meguiar's product are for paint. I'm sure the carriers and such have to be different. Also they have to worry more about working time and wipe off, longevity in the bottle, and a bunch of other stuff, so a product is far more than just the abrasive. But I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the abrasives are simply alumina of whatever size bought from Buehler or other lab supply outlets, and each of the products (compound, polish, swirlx, etc.) is mostly about having a different size.

I agree and salute Mike for not calling this "nanotechnology". That kind of thing is typically reserved for structures on the scale of nanometers, if not Angstroms. A micron is much large than that. It's still rocks in a bottle. They're just small rocks of a very consistent size. And use of alumina for polishing isn't exactly new, I wouldn't be surprised if it was in use when Henry Ford was born.

[Don]

Re: Why not use Meguiar's technique for nanotechnology?

I agree and salute Mike for not calling this "nanotechnology". That kind of thing is typically reserved for structures on the scale of nanometers, if not Angstroms. A micron is much large than that. It's still rocks in a bottle. They're just small rocks of a very consistent size. And use of alumina for polishing isn't exactly new, I wouldn't be surprised if it was in use when Henry Ford was born.

Interesting post, it's nice having someone with a clue dispel the myths and calling out the others that use the terminology about their products ... not calling them liars, just letting them know their terminology is 'mistaken,' so to speak.

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Why not use Meguiar's technique for nanotechnology?

And use of alumina for polishing isn't exactly new, I wouldn't be surprised if it was in use when Henry Ford was born.

Very true, no doubt about that. The trick is how much of an abrasive load you can carry to the paint surface without scouring, how the alumina is "created" (for lack of a better term - perhaps "manipulated" is better), whether the carrier is water based or solvent based (interestingly, either of these two can contain both water and other solvents so don't read that as a strict "either/or" scenario) and a variety of other factors come into play. But it's even more complicated than that - our source for this particular raw material is, shall we say, unique in the automotive surface care industry. And that's about all I can say before someone takes my keyboard away from me!!!