Removing sharpie doesn't equal cleaning properties.

[NTP_JC-Z4]

After reading all these posts discussing cleaning abilities, I'm going to try and tackle this issue from a different perspective

I don't believe that one should jump to the conclusion that a certain product has cleaning properties just because it removes the sharpie marks from a washer, whether it be Maytag or GE.

When talking about "cleaning properties", we should distinguish chemical cleaning apart from physical cleaning. I would categorize anything that uses a chemical solvent/cleaner under the category of chemical cleaning. These products would likely contain organic solvents, alkali cleaners, or possibly acidic (less likely) cleaners. The basis of a pure chemical cleaners is to use a solvent/cleaner to dissolve impurities (oxidation, ect.) and should not remove any layer of paint or clearcoat. A product that comes to mind would be AIO, or sometimes fellow Autopians like to use alcohol/water mix to prep a surface and that would be considered as a chemical cleaner.

Physical cleaner, relies on using fine particles to carry out mechanical abrasions and these products would remove paint/clearcoat. The key here is mechanical and strictly speaking, rubbing anything over a surface creates friction and will remove some material. An extreme example that comes to mind is that water from a stream is able to smooth out stones after a prolonged period of time.

Commonly, wax (not the sealant, but the real wax) is mixed with an organic solvent to facilitate application. There are a HUGE varieties of organic solvents and the ones used in pure wax is likely not meant to perform chemical cleaning, only to facilitate use. However, organic solvents has a tendency to have a varied spectrum of solubility-meaning that they will dissolve various other organic chemicals. Likewise, sealants and other car care products prepared are prepared in solvents and these solvents may partially dissolve various other compounds.

I hope I am explaining myself properly and please point out if I am wrong. 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. Depending on the sharpie used, even water could remove some of the sharpie mark but 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) In addition, the mechanical rubbing of products over the sharpie mark will create friction and possibly remove some marks. Lastly, it may just be chance that the solvent used in a product happen to be able to dissolve the sharpie mark (the ink is carried also in an organic solvent-the odour is the smell from a volatile organic solvent and that's why sharpie marks dry so fast) yet the solvent in the product will not be able to tackle impurities that we find on car finishes.

I hope this post is not long, boring and pointless. I believe most of you already know this and I just hope to point out some old facts that deserves some reclarification.

[Thumper]

Good post. You make some good points, but I'm chemically challenged so I can't say whether your right or wrong.

[Mosca]

I put Sharpie on my dryer and rubbed it off with my finger, so my finger must have cleaning properties.




Tom
(just laughing, guys)

[Greg]

These are good points. However, I believe that the outcome of these tests negate the friction argument because they were presumably tested in the exact same manner. I am referring to SRL's test BTW. From his tests, the Z2 and SG didn't remove any of the marker. Granted, there could be carrier solvents in the NXT that just happen to remove sharpie, but don't necessarily mean it has cleaners, but it also indicates that there is the possibility which there are cleaning agents in it. This has been since confirmed by the manufacturer, thus perhaps this test was more valid than you seem to believe from your post.

[Accumulator]

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.

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.

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.

[BillNorth]

Originally posted by NTP_JC-Z4
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. Depending on the sharpie used, even water could remove some of the sharpie mark but 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) In addition, the mechanical rubbing of products over the sharpie mark will create friction and possibly remove some marks. Lastly, it may just be chance that the solvent used in a product happen to be able to dissolve the sharpie mark (the ink is carried also in an organic solvent-the odour is the smell from a volatile organic solvent and that's why sharpie marks dry so fast) yet the solvent in the product will not be able to tackle impurities that we find on car finishes.

I think the one thing you are totally missing in all of this is that SRL's test was performed in a controlled consistent environment. He used the same sharpie on the same washing machine with the same detailing products as well as water. His results do provide a great deal of insight into the cleaning properties of the products tested. Regardless of whether or not he was removing sharpie or clearcoat the fact remains that NXT was the only one that actually removed something, while z, k, and water did not. Now this may not necessarily mean that NXT is harsh, but IT DOES give a good indication that Z and K are very gentle, more so than NXT.

The part of the test that I found to be even more compelling was when NXT removed the sharpie that was COVERED by the z2/zfx combo. I think this definitively tells us that NXT will in fact remove other sealants when attempting to layer over top. And that was really the big question on everyones mind.

JMHO,

Bill.

[bet993]

From Websters:

epis·te·mol·o·gy
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek epistEmE knowledge, from epistanai to understand, know, from epi- + histanai to cause to stand

: the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity

[spetulla]

I always felt that if some of the sharpie was removed that was an indicated that layering was most likely not working, as if a layer existed between the sharpie and the air, upon application of another layer no sharpie should be removed.

Whether this involves chemical or physical cleaners doesn't seem to be the issue...

[killrwheels]

we have been having a somewhat heated battle over at the corvetteforum , what do you all think ?? http://forums.corvetteforum.com/zerothread?id=759969

[Accumulator]

Originally posted by BillNorth
The part of the test that I found to be even more compelling was when NXT removed the sharpie that was COVERED by the z2/zfx combo. I think this definitively tells us that NXT will in fact remove other sealants when attempting to layer over top....

Good observation, Bill I'd completely forgotten that part of the original test , and yes, that part of the test is truly valid with regard to detailing.

[blkZ28Conv]

A few questions are:
Is a polymer sealant equivalent to a blue or black Sharpie ( MBZ500 verses SRL test )?
Is there a point ( complete curing) that renders a polymer more resistant to mild chemical cleansing agents? Solvent content?
Can a polymer sealant bond properly (completely) to a surface contaminated with a Sharpie-like material? Validity of test conclusions.

Nevertheless, extremely interesting thread which I believe is positive critical feedback to the manufacturer and their possible re-evaluation of product's (NXT's) contents and their effects on potential usage as a LSP for sealant users. All good.

[Aurora40]

Originally posted by BillNorth
The part of the test that I found to be even more compelling was when NXT removed the sharpie that was COVERED by the z2/zfx combo. I think this definitively tells us that NXT will in fact remove other sealants when attempting to layer over top. And that was really the big question on everyones mind.

There was a sort of implicit assumption that Zaino or Klasse would layer, though. It's quite possible that Zaino and Klasse don't layer either, but just don't contain a solvent that removes the marker. I mean, all you can really see is that the Zaino over Zaino doesn't remove any more marker, but it doesn't mean it didn't remove all the previous Zaino (or Klasse or whatever). But since the NXT does remove the marker, it makes it seem like a less suitable product, even though it's possible that nothing else really layers, either. Just thinking out loud...