Wetsanding vs. Rotary vs. PC, what removes more paint? (The answer may shock you)

**the other pc** · 06-30-2008, 05:18 PM

from Units: M

"mil [1]

a unit of distance equal to 0.001 inch: a "milli-inch," in other words. Mils are used, primarily in the U.S., to express small distances and tolerances in engineering work. One mil is exactly 25.4 microns, just as one inch is exactly 25.4 millimeters. This unit is also called the thou. With the increasing use of metric units in the U.S., many machinists now avoid the use of "mil" because that term is also a handy slang for the millimeter."

Contrary to the above, I`ve never heard a machinist or mechanical engineer use the word "mil" to mean millimeter. I`ve only ever heard it used to mean 0.001".

PC.

**imported_DetailDan** · 06-30-2008, 05:38 PM

I have seen people put holograms in with the PC.

**SpecC** · 07-01-2008, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by D&D Auto Detail

I have seen people put holograms in with the PC.

haha noobs!

no jk.

this is a shocking conclusion indeed... although this means that PCs should have more power to level swirls so i am confused once again

sorry i did not read all 7 pages to the thread. I just read post #1 and decided to post this after seeing the post i quoted too :sadpace:

**Accumulator** · 07-01-2008, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by D&D Auto Detail

I have seen people put holograms in with the PC.

Huh, I`ve *never* seen that, and didn`t even think it was possible what with the PC`s dual action/random orbital movements :think: I know it can leave hazing/etc., but I`ve never seen it leave holograms...never seen holograms from anything except a rotary.

Not :argue just never saw/imagined it. I don`t understand how a random orbital abrasion pattern can result in that kind of marring

Seems to me the surface would be too "cross hatched" for holograms to occur.

**Bigpoppa3346** · 07-01-2008, 06:34 PM

Accum, they are not *holograms* in the traditional sense, whereas you can see every movement with the buffer that the person made. I`ve made "holograms" with the PC and a very agressive product (IMO, I know you think differently), HT EC. It was with a 5.5" LC CCS orange pad, and it had a "holographic" appearance to it. I didn`t break down the polish well at all, and the resulting micromarring was so severe and uneven due to uneven polish breakdown that it gave it a hologramed appearance. I hope this makes some sort of sense.

**imported_Picus** · 07-01-2008, 07:01 PM

I may be wrong, but I think the difference is something like this.

PC hazing: http://gtaindetail.com/pics/audis4062106/a.jpg

rotary hologram (the ones we all know and love): http://gtaindetail.com/pics/vette060607/a.jpg

**99blackSE** · 07-01-2008, 08:56 PM

Picus` picture of the PC haze is what I have seen the PC do before, and it was me who did it, and just like bigpoppa said, it was with an aggressive compound (OHC). In my case I think it was a badly loaded pad that did it. Nothing 106FF couldn`t handle though. Todd`s findings make sense to me though, very interesting stuff. I think next year I`ll have to invest in a gauge.

**phamkl** · 07-01-2008, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by SpecC

haha noobs!

no jk.

this is a shocking conclusion indeed... although this means that PCs should have more power to level swirls so i am confused once again

sorry i did not read all 7 pages to the thread. I just read post #1 and decided to post this after seeing the post i quoted too :sadpace:

It`s not that the PC has greater ability to remove swirls, it`s that the PC will require more paint removal to level a swirl. As you correct your paint using a PC, the original swirls will get a little deeper before you level your paint.

**SpecC** · 07-02-2008, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by phamkl

It`s not that the PC has greater ability to remove swirls, it`s that the PC will require more paint removal to level a swirl. As you correct your paint using a PC, the original swirls will get a little deeper before you level your paint.

thank you for the clarification. BTW, i have converted a friend to rotary polishing now :goodjob

**Accumulator** · 07-02-2008, 11:18 AM

Bigpoppa3346- Yeah, you and I are just using "hologram" is slightly different ways. I know just what you`re referring to and that`s different from what I was thinking of.

**imported_kenny1775** · 07-02-2008, 05:24 PM

Excellent review! This is just the type of information/research that makes these forums productive to look at...

**Douxebris** · 07-03-2008, 04:25 AM

This is certainly a most informative thread. But somehow, I`m thinking a lot of people are taking this information offered to come to the conclusion that a pc takes off more paint than a rotary. Does anyone believe that a "normal" two-step with a pc vs a "normal" two-step with a rotary takes off more material in the process? I don`t.

**Todd@RUPES** · 07-03-2008, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Jeff Laughhunn

This is certainly a most informative thread. But somehow, I`m thinking a lot of people are taking this information offered to come to the conclusion that a pc takes off more paint than a rotary. Does anyone believe that a "normal" two-step with a pc vs a "normal" two-step with a rotary takes off more material in the process? I don`t.

And you are correct. A rotary will remove more paint step for step.

Of course it generally takes 2-3 steps to remove defects from the paint using a rotary vs. as many as 8-10 with a PC, in which case you would remove more paint to remove the same depth as defects.

**Douxebris** · 07-03-2008, 02:13 PM

Thanks so much for clarifying. I gleaned that from your test, myself. HOWEVER, with this being the World-Wide-Web that we`re attached to, this thread has taken a life of it`s own elsewhere. I ran across several instances where people on various forums were indeed postulating that the circular polisher was declared "less harmful" than the random orbit. And they were pointing at this thread as proof. I thought it important that this thread here on Autopia isn`t used to perpetuate that thought, and the fact that *you* responded as you did, should squelch that mis-interpretation.

Thanks again