SG Tests #1 & #2

[foxtrapper]

I`d mentioned I`d been doing some tests of Klasse SG out of personal curiousity. Some of you expressed interest in updates before I was finished. I`m not done testing, but what I`ve found so far is rather interesting, so I thought I`d go ahead and put it up.



As a bit of background information, for several years I worked as a test lab engineer for Black & Decker. I`m familiar with test lab proceedures. Repeatability is the holy grail. That way the data can be verified by others or retested consistently. This does mean sometimes that testing doesn`t duplicate "real world" but is instead "test lab" conditions. Bear that in mind. These tests are for specific qualities, and are not all inclusive. They are also designed to be able to be duplicated by anyone here on this board.



The testing is not finished, I`ve got some more things I intend to do. But as I said, the results so far are rather interesting, and honestly, not what I expected.







Klasse SG test



Test #1

Purpose: To compare immediate wipe off vs. 24-hour wait wiping of layers of SG.



Method: SG was applied to clean plate glass with a paper towel. Areas were taped off in the grid outline described below. Areas were taped off with black electrical tape. Numbers indicate the numbers of layers applied. Normally 3 drops of SG were applied to a clean paper towel for each application.



Grid layout:

Immediate wipe.......24-hour wait

5..............................5

3..............................3

1..............................1



Observations:



Application

The immediate wipe areas would have SG applied. A wait of approximately one minute would take place, the area would be wiped with a clean paper towel, and a subsequent layer would be applied. This rate of application would continue until the number of layers had been applied.



The 24-hour wait areas would have SG applied as above. A 24-hour wait would take place and then the area would be wiped clean with a paper towel. A subsequent layer would then be applied. This rate of application would continue until the number of layers had been applied.



SG would âہ“smokeâ€Â� after approximately 3-10 seconds, indicating that a volatile or other evaporative substance had dissipated. This would take place a few seconds after discontinuing wiping. Applying thicker layers (no precision) would show similar results, though it would take several additional seconds to minutes, depending on how thickly the SG was applied. Once this âہ“smokingâ€Â� took place, the product on the glass plate was immovable.



Polishing

The areas that were wiped immediately were easily polished. Those with the 24-hour wait were slightly more difficult. Areas that had thicker applications of SG were progressively more difficult to polish. Symptoms were similar to crusting of carnauba wax. Both types of areas would polish to an invisible shine.



Opacity

SG dried and polished to perfect visual opacity, and was completely undetectable to the eye. This held true in all areas, regardless of the layering.



Layering

Upon completion of applying all the layers to the glass plate, the tape was removed in order to measure the thickness of SG over the glass. The plan was to measure the height at the edge where the tape had been using depth gauges and magnification. A scraping of the SG and a thickness measurement of the scraping was also planned.



This proved to be impossible because upon wiping the glass with a paper towel all detectable signs of these edges disappeared, and scraping with a razor blade could raise no SG shavings. Razor blades scraping produced minute quantities of âہ“dustâ€Â�, and the quantities of âہ“dustâ€Â� were visually identical in all areas. It would appear that no buildup of SG took place in spite of the multiple applications and two differing application techniques.



Touch test

Immediately after the application of the 5 layers, and before the tape was removed, the surfaces were wiped and polished with a paper towel. A touch test of the surfaces was performed, comparing them to the adjacent clean glass. The results of this touch test are:

1 layer gave a mildly more slippery feel than bare glass, but was inconsistent over the surface.

3 layers gave a more slippery feel than one layer, and were consistent over the entire surface.

5 layers felt exactly like the 3 layers.

There was no discernable difference visually or by touch between areas immediately wiped and those areas with the 24-hour delay.



Upon removal of the electrical tape separating the test areas, and polishing the entire surface with a paper towel, it was impossible to detect the difference between the areas where SG had been applied and those areas it had not.



Conclusion

1. There is no advantage or difference in waiting 24 hours between layers vs applying layers immediately.

2. Layering does not appear to build up the quantity of SG over the substrate.

3. Layering does appear to âہ“fill in gapsâ€Â�.







Test #2

Purpose: To test dissolvability of dried SG.



Method: SG was poured into the depression on the bottom of an inverted Dannon yogurt container. A puddle approximately 2mm thick was created. This was allowed to dry for 24 hours.



Observations:

At the end of 24 hours the SG had dried to a hard thin layer on the bottom of the container. The various lettering and symbols on the bottom of the container were clearly visible, though slightly blurred. This layer of SG was flexible as when the container was flexed to remove the solid SG, it did not crack or otherwise âہ“popâ€Â� out. The SG was clearly visible (as opposed to the glass plate results from test #1).



Dry wiping

Dry wiping with a paper towel resulted in no material transfer or effect on the SG. Even when done vigorously, no change resulted.



Wet wiping

A saliva-dampened finger was rubbed over the dried SG. The SG immediately became slippery, and over the course of approximately 5 seconds it completely dissolved, leaving a white tacky residue on the fingertip. Wiping the wet SG area with a dry paper towel resulted in complete transfer of the SG. Visual examination of the container in this area showed no SG remaining.



Other solvents

No other solvents were tested.



Conclusion

1. SG is water soluble, even when dried or âہ“curedâ€Â�.

[spotter]

I wonder if test #1 will show any difference in durability?

[Accumulator]

Foxtrapper- Interesting test, and thanks for explaining your methodology so clearly. Heh heh, I also appreciated your "disclaimers"



As you pointed out, results in a lab environment don`t always hold up under less controlled "real world" conditions, but I still find the apparent differences between your results and my experiences to be intriguing.



Two points where our experiences differ:



-You found no evidence of SG "layering" while I have found dramatic differences in durability between areas treated with different numbers of applications. What immediately comes to mind is the possibility that SG behaves differently when applied to glass than it does when applied to automotive paint, plastic, and chrome plating.



-You found SG to be water soluble based on the "saliva test", yet repeated washings (regular, shampoo and water washings) do not remove it from my vehicles. I wonder if human saliva should be considered equivalent to water in this context.



Please do NOT take the above as an :argue or :nono I just wonder how our different experiences might be reconciled.



I also wonder if there is some additional curing (that takes place over time) that might not have been readily apparent.



Looking forward to any additional testing you might do...

[vdog0531]

these are very interesting tests you have done. It makes me wonder if the "protection" we think we are providing to our cars is really mental or actual. haha oh well... thanks for the info.



Vernon

[imported_Qship]

Excellent write up! Thank you for taking the time to do the tests.

[Glossmaster]

*****Laughing*******

We`re all sick individuals, aren`t we? Thanks for the info Fox!!That`s what I love about this site!



In some ways though, Isn`t this site kinda like a Star Trek convention?????? ( laughing somemore )

[laefd]

Originally posted by BlkTac05

*****Laughing*******

We`re all sick individuals, aren`t we? Thanks for the info Fox!!That`s what I love about this site!



In some ways though, Isn`t this site kinda like a Star Trek convention?????? ( laughing somemore )

Actually, No. Trekkies are strange individuals who are constantly/chronically obcessed with anything and everything to do with STAR TREK for sometimes no other reason but that it has something to do with STAR TREK. Autopians, on the other hand, are constantly/chronically obcessed with anything and everything to do with DETAILING CARS for sometimes no other reason but that it has something to do with DETAILING CARS. STAR TREK v DETAILING CARS - big difference!



Besides, Trekkies are into UFO`s and microwaves while Autopians are into UPP and microfibers.

[Glossmaster]

I can see the reflections of UFO"s in my paint at night!!!! lol

Good point Laef.........I have yet to drees up in some bizzare costume when I`m purchasing Zaino, Klasse or P21S online!! ( although I am wearing knights armor right now.........with a microfiber loin cloth..........lol



Serwaxalot

[chevyguy28]

Originally posted by Accumulator

I wonder if human saliva should be considered equivalent to water in this context.

Just to add some more data, the first time I ever applied SG, I put it on too thickly and waited for it to dry before removing. It was nearly impossible to remove. Water and QD spray didn`t help that much. But saliva buffed it right out.





Nice test BTW.

[kartoon]

Thanks for documenting and sharing your findings - greatly appreciated :xyxthumbs

[DETAILKING]

Nice Test.



I disagree with your last statement, however, that SG is water soluble in it`s cured state. That blob that you formed in the mold consisted mostly of a "dried substrate, not cured polymer. In this is solvents, water, various indicators,etc, which are water soluble, and this is what you are seeing. I mean if it was water soluble, then if you poured water over the glass it would bead water for a minute or two and then stop as the protection dissolved away.



A true test on the effect on layering would be a durability test.

[gnahc79]

Does it matter that the tests were conducted on glass vs. a car panel? I have no idea...really .

[imported_JellyBean]

Great test and write up! Flawed or not, this is one of the few objective posts that I`ve seen so far. But I too wish that you would`ve used water instead of saliva to test for solvency. We`re not quite spit-shining our cars--yet. But seriously, why did you use saliva instead of water? And again, thanks for the write up.

[ntoddalbert]

Great initiative....... Interesting post

[Trinity]

Here are some possible explanations for the observed results:



We got to remember that a polymer is chain of molecules. You would need some very expensive equipment to detect the thickness of a few layers of molecules/atoms. I don`t think the naked eye can find a difference in the amount of "dust" in test 1, notwithstanding the fact that the amount of air pockets in the piles are not uniform.



Curing is more than just drying. There is a chemical reaction going on, the polymer molecules bond to the paint surface through crosslinking. It is only the molecules next to the paint surface that will bond, hence the explanation why thin layers is preferred....less waste. In test 2 there is no bonding, just a substance drying out, reapply water and you restore the original state.



These facts would be true of any sealant not just limited to SG.



Just offering my $0.02 worth and saying not to jump to conclusions yet.



By the way, I never witnessed any "smoke" while applying, has anyone else seen this?