NTP_JC-Z4- You raise a number of good points, but I *THINK* you have a few contradictions/logical "gaps" that are messing you up. Please don't take any of this as a slam, I find this all interesting and think we might just need to fine-tune it a bit. Don't worry about being boring, etc,; some of us enjoy epistemological discussions. Those who aren't interested can ignore the thread.
Quote:
|
When talking about "cleaning properties", we should distinguish chemical cleaning apart from physical cleaning.
|
Yep, absolutely. I agree we should differentiate between mechanical and chemical cleaning (note that some products, such as
Meg's #2, have both). Different processes with different applications and concerns.
Quote:
|
Basically, I just want to say that rubbing SG, NXT, Zaino and whatever over a sharpie mark doesn't really indicate much as to their cleaning properties, or lack there of....would we really consider water to have the kind of cleaning ability that we associate with car care products? (Of course water cleans, but I am referring to a more vigorous cleaning property)...
|
While we might not think of those products, or water, as being "cleaning solvents", they ARE. Yes, friction and solvent action are different, and the whole "rubbing" issue DOES cloud things a bit. But generally, cleaning is cleaning, and *I* wouldn't want to draw a line at "this IS/IS NOT cleaning in the automotive detailing context". Sorta silly example: what if you WERE cleaning some Sharpie-ink graffiti off a white car?
*IMO* the "Sharpie ink removal test" is another imperfect, but useful indicator, similar to the "CD scratch test" or the previous "black paint on the propeller test". It DOES test "cleaning", just the specific cleaning of "Sharpie ink removal, with rubbing" from which we have to decide whether or not/how much to extrapolate into the general realm of detailing.
Sure, we could devise better tests. If we wanted to test for MECHANICAL cleaning (i.e., mechanical/abrasive removal), a better test might be to layer different colors of paint and try to "clean off" a layer to expose a different, underlying color. An improved test for CHEMICAL cleaning might be to put a test panel under a tree and then test products for their "sap removal" cleaning abilities (but note that THAT test would be "sap-specific").
Heh heh, the better the test, the less convenient....*I* say the "Sharpie ink removal test" DOES provide some useful info, we just have to be careful how we interpret it and how much we read into it.