Abrasive/Non-Abrasive Definitions

S

Setec Astronomy

Well-known member
I guess I'm tired of hearing products like Meg's #7 referred to as "non-abrasive". It's a "polish", after all, and it contains particles (diatomaceous earth, according to the MSDS). Those particles may be really fine, but they are still some sort of abrasive, perhaps more of a jeweler's rouge class of abrasive, but an abrasive nonetheless.



If you have 80 grit and 3000 grit sandpaper, you don't say the 3000 grit is "non-abrasive", even though it's much much much finer than 80 grit. If terry towels can mar your surface, aren't they abrasive? So how is a "polish" non-abrasive? I think it would be more accurate to say that the size of the abrasive is below the point at which visible scratches can be produced.



For those of you who think that diatomaceous earth must not be an abrasive, since #7 is non-abrasive, here is a definition from Wikipedia: "Diatomaceous earth, also known as diatomite, kieselguhr, kieselgur, and Celite, is a naturally occurring, soft, chalk-like, sedimentary rock mineral that is easily crumbled into a fine white to off-white powder. This powder has an abrasive feeling similar to pumice powder and is very light-weight due to its high porosity. It is made primarily of silica and consists of fossilized remains of diatoms, a type of hard-shelled algae. It is used as a filtration aid, as a mild abrasive, as a mechanical insecticide, as an absorbent for liquids, as cat litter, and as a component of dynamite." Oh, BTW, it's used as a "mechanical insecticide" because "The microscopically fine, sharp edges desiccate the insects' exoskeleton upon contact and the pests dehydrate and die within hours. The insects also die when they eat the dust." (bioconet.com)



There is a difference between something that is non-abrasive, and something that is for practical purposes non-abrasive when we compare it to more abrasive polishes, compounds, etc. Yes, I realize that Meg's says that #7 is a "pure polish" and non-abrasive, and whether you subscribe to their filler/oil philosophy or not, they have been doing this a long time, and one of the reasons they made/make #7 and advocate its use under waxes is that it has an abrasive in it (4-8% by weight according to the MSDS) which is very fine, and cleans and polishes the surface to a very fine finish.



I just wish we could use a different term (functionally non-abrasive?), because IMO it's a misnomer to refer to products like this as "non-abrasive". Does this bother anyone else, or am I just having a bad morning?
 
Sorry bro I know you are referring to me haha. I was just going by what I have read here, I stopped to ponder before I posed that remark in the thread. Since #7 is a polish after all. Sorry!
 
A bad mornig for sure. I hope the rest of your day is better. :woot:





Actually, you are totally correct, maybe overly correct, but correct nonetheless.
 
Good points. Do you recall last year in the seminar when Rod Kraft pointed out that everything is abrasive, even finger tips? It's just something good to be aware of. I imagine the actual abrasiveness scale expanding incredibly long from pole to pole.
 
Rolla said:
Sorry bro I know you are referring to me haha. I was just going by what I have read here, I stopped to ponder before I posed that remark in the thread. Since #7 is a polish after all. Sorry!
Click to expand...



Not directed at you at all...perhaps you brought it to mind, but the "non-abrasive" discussion has been going on here for ages.
 
Bill D said:
Good points. Do you recall last year in the seminar when Rod Kraft pointed out that everything is abrasive, even finger tips? It's just something good to be aware of. I imagine the actual abrasiveness scale expanding incredibly long from pole to pole.
Click to expand...



I forgot about that, Bill. I actually think it is more the stuff that is stuck in your skin that is the abrasive, rather than your finger tip. I have had occasion to look at my fingertips under a microscope at work (metal sliver) and you'd be surprised at what is embedded in your "clean" hands. But as we know, the finer the surface, the more easily marred it is (well, the finer the finish, the more easily the marring is detected)...everything is relative, I guess.
 
Setec Astronomy said:
I guess I'm tired of hearing products like Meg's #7 referred to as "non-abrasive". It's a "polish", after all, and it contains particles (diatomaceous earth, according to the MSDS). Those particles may be really fine, but they are still some sort of abrasive, perhaps more of a jeweler's rouge class of abrasive, but an abrasive nonetheless...I just wish we could use a different term (functionally non-abrasive?), because IMO it's a misnomer to refer to products like this as "non-abrasive". Does this bother anyone else, or am I just having a bad morning?
Click to expand...



Heh heh, that "functionally nonabrasive" is what I've been using to describe these types of products.



I first used #7 (and #3 and #5) *way* back in the day, on very soft GM black lacquer. The sort of paint that most really soft 100% cotton terry towels would mar. Unless I'd let it oxidize, I didn't get any paint transfer *if* I used a soft applictor. No "functional" cut; it didn't take off any black paint or remove even light marring. People who'd been using it since around the time of WWII told me that it was nonabrasive and I had no reason to doubt them based on my own experiences.



Cornstarch is a *very* soft substance, but adding it to #7 (as mentioned in a recent thread) made it slightly abrasive. You could tell the difference right away and had to be careful lest you induce marring.



When I read posts about the ingredients in #3/#5/#7/#81 (and other stuff like AIO with its "one micron abrasives") I used to post with "no, it's nonabrasive" because it doesn't do what people expect from "abrasives". Then I read about the clay/etc. content and I sorta :rolleyes: but realized that it's a valid point (if only theoretical) so I started with the "functionally nonabrasive" wording.
 
Heh heh.....sorry if I unconsciously lifted your phrase, Accumulator! I guess it sticks in my craw that glazes like #7 are treated here as only something that puts a layer of oil/glycerin on the surface, and not something that has some capability to smooth/remove, however slight. Someday soon I'm going to uncover my 20+ year old Meg's literature and see how they describe #7 Sealer & Reseal Glaze. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I recall Meg's telling us that #7 had a place in preparing the surface for LSP thru polishing. Maybe my problem with it is, as Bill alluded to, is that I consider the "glazes" to be at the really fine end of the polish spectrum, just as a compound would be at the other end.
 
Setec- Heh heh, lift my terminology any time- "great minds thinking alike" and all that :o The more consistent we are about this stuff the easier for everybody.



I dunno about the "leveling effect, however slight" bit though, at least relative to #7. It absolutely never did that for me. Note that the "functionally abrasive" thing isn't just terminology, if the abrasives aren't strong enough to "win the contest against paint" then it really won't abrade. Goofy example: imagine trying to sharpen a carbide cutting tool with a rough towel. The towel is *technically* abrasive, but it won't win against the tool.



Keep in mind that Meguiar's uses words in, uhm, "inventive" ways ;) :o When they say "polishing" they don't necessarily mean mechanically/abrasively affecting a surface. When they say something "eliminates" or "removes" swirlmarks, they don't necessarily mean that the surface has been mechanically leveled and that the swirlmaks no longer *exist*.
 
i know this is an old thread, but HAD to post to it. Thanks for the clarification SETEC, and i WHOLE-HEARTEDLY agree. After following po85rd w/ aio and leaving some 1 micron marks, i wasn't happy anymore with the AIO LABELING.
 
Well, don't get too happy....I kind of have to agree with Accumulator's last post, and I DID find my old Meg's literature...and my recollection wasn't that accurate :o
 
Setec Astronomy said:
I guess I'm tired of hearing products like Meg's #7 referred to as "non-abrasive". It's a "polish", after all, and it contains particles (diatomaceous earth, according to the MSDS). Those particles may be really fine, but they are still some sort of abrasive, perhaps more of a jeweler's rouge class of abrasive, but an abrasive nonetheless.
Click to expand...





Hi Mike,



I applied #7 Show Car Glaze to this single stage, black lacquer paint, by hand, after machine polishing out all of the swirls, and I dare say... we did not abrade the finish in any way...



260VetteAfter05.jpg




260VetteAfter04.jpg




260VetteAfter03.jpg




260VetteAfter02.jpg




260VetteAfter01.jpg






Do you actually think that after over 70 years, that if a product that claims to be non-abrasive, did in fact abrade the finish and instill scratches into soft paints like single stage lacquers, that it would still be around in the year 2005 making these same claims?



Don't you think at the least, history would show/prove this to be a false claim? Are you actually going to claim that Meguiar's non-abrasive, pure polishes scratch paint?







I was in a meeting on Thursday in which two of our chemists brought up topics such as this, topics where someone on an Internet discussion forum tried to make an assertion about the capabilities of a product by what was on the MSD sheet.



MSD sheets are documents that include specific information for safety and transportation issues, period. Just because an ingredient is listed in an MSD sheet, this does not mean you as an outsider can certify what form that ingredient is in, and what function it plays in a formula.



Are you sure you want to go down this road?
 
First of all, Mike, my original post never suggested that "pure polishes" were damaging or scratching paint. This is an old thread, and if you look at post #11, I kinda retracted my statement. But since you've dropped by and seem to be in a fighting mood, if a "pure polish" doesn't really do anything, what is the point of using it? Perhaps you can tell us what it is actually doing...is it just a lubricant between your polishing cloth and the paint? Certainly something must be going on in order to polish (Definition: 1 : to make smooth and glossy usually by friction : BURNISH-- courtesy www.m-w.com) the paint? Or, from the Meguiar's website, "Meguiar's pure polishes are designed to create brilliant high gloss while preparing the surface for the application of a protective coating." What is the pure polish doing do "prepare" the surface, and how?





My point in the original post, in case you missed it, was that these products actually do something, rather than nothing, which was a positive about the product, not a negative. If there was a "road" I was going down, it was to clarify the terminology we use here on Autopia, not to denigrate Meguiar's products, which I have shelves full of, including #5, #7, and #81.



I hope you really dropped by to show off the 'Vette you just detailed, and not to accuse me of making the "claim that Meguiar's non-abrasive, pure polishes scratch paint" which I certainly did not.
 
Hi Mike,



Thanks for clarifying, now that I re-read your post I see your point more clearly. I'm certainly not in any fighting mood, but I am in the middle of an article on polishes and I'll do my best to address some of the issues brought up concerning polishes in general, and pure polishes in specific.
 
I guess I'm kind of in the dark or stupid..But..What is PO85RD? and what is it used for? Polish, scratch remover, what? It is mentioned many times but I haven't a clue. It must be good stuff, seems like many are using it. I can't find it under any code list either.

Lineman
 
Mike Phillips--I'm glad we understand each other. Sorry if my original point wasn't that clear.



Lineman--a little off-topic from the way this thread has gone, but PO85RD is a Menzerna polish designed specifically for the Ceramiclear paints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top