Dilution Markings

M

mobiledynamics

New member
So which comes 1st product:water or water:product

I have my bottles labeled one way....
THEN I just happened to have a real product bottle in front of me and they had theirs the other way
So I trusted that all these years I`ve been labeling it wrong, and redid all my dilution labels...since there was a product bottle in front of me showing it 360

I just googled it to verify this, and of course google seems to be more along how I originally had it

Is there a consensus on proper dilution markings...
 
I`ve always thought it was water first...then product...not many products would be cost-effective if it were the other way. I dilute Meguiars APC 4:1...4 parts water to one part APC
 
I`m not sure it really matters. It simply is a ratio. I would bet, however, that the higher number is almost always the water, or whatever solution/liquid is going to be the base component of the mixture. I think convention, however, is product:water.


McKee`s rinseless: 1:256 (1 oz of product to 256 oz water). You could say 256:1, but you`d have to assume it was 256 oz of water to 1 oz product....unless you want your McKee`s rinseless to strip the wax, clear, paint and eat through the primer!

See below:



attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Untitled-1.jpg
    Untitled-1.jpg
    337.2 KB · Views: 101
Dilution ratios require some "algebra" math to get the "correct" ratio for the mixed solution of product-to-water. For example:
A common ratio of 1:4 is really 5 parts: 1 part product and 4 parts water. That means that a 32 oz bottle of mixed solution is really 6.4 oz of product and 25.6 oz of water to get 32 oz. This "math" applies to ANY solution ratio. A 1:10 ratio is really 11 parts, a 1:8 ration is really 9 parts, (etc.) So , if you divide your bottle size or final oz quantity desired by the parts number (IE, ratio sum), you will get the amount (oz) of product needed for that ratio mixer.

One other factor in mixing chemicals into water is to do just that: pour in the water FIRST, then the chemical. This is a high school chemistry lab safety practice as it allows the water to dilute the chemical as it is poured in. If it is done in reverse, exothermic (heat) reactions caused by chemical reactions between the water and the chemical can occur, causing the chemical to boil out of the container. This is very true of any strong acid (like sulfuric acid) and water.
How do I know?? I did this in high school by pouring this acid into a large test tube and then trying to dilute it with water. The acid immediately boiled out of the test tube, ruining a new high school track team shirt I had on and causing minor burns to my shoulder, even after the quick application baking soda to neutralize the acid. It could have been much worse had it gotten on my face. (These were the days before rubber gloves and face shields where required in high school labs.) Needless to say, it is a chemical mixing safety lesson I have NOT forgotten. This is especially true using Meg`s Detailer Line D140 Wheel Brightener, which is highly acidic. I would also implore you to use safety eye goggles or plastic glasses when mixing, as the inadvertent splash of chemical into the eyes can be avoided this way. As the saying goes, "Safety is no accident".

Edit: I also think that this is why many manufacturers suggest "odd"-numbered ratios like 1:3 or 1:7. because it becomes a summed even-number of TOTAL mixture parts: IE, 1:3 ratio for a quart (32 oz) is 8 oz of chemical and 24 oz of water.), 8 into 24 = 3 and 8 + 24 = 32.

Anyone interested in using the metric system for this? It`s a lot easier with a base 10 system!! Didn`t think so.... (the rest of the world is laughing at the USA for our continued adherence to the British/English Measurement System for commerce/business and engineering. Of course when was last time you went to Home Depot and asked for 50 x 100mm wood stud, or the meat department at the local grocery store and asked for 500 grams of hamburger?? I think not!))
 
This discussion of the seemingly obvious reminds me of when I had to waste a couple lectures explaining such stuff to my (college) students before they could apply the Programming I was there to teach.

And that Product-Into-Water...sheesh, I wouldn`t have survived childhood without knowing that by third grade.

Metric was coming on strong then too, they taught both English/Metric side-by-side in my gradeschool. I still know *exactly* how long a centimeter/decimeter is just as well as I know an inch.

Eh...OK, sorry, end of Old Guy Rant :o
 
Accumulator:
The metric system being taught in USA schools has been around since the medical and chemical worlds have used this measurement system since its inception in Europe in the late 1700`s to "simplify" the odd number of units and the conversion numbers associated with them in the British (Imperial) System.
What is REALLY hard to believe is that the United States of America was to adopt the Metric System by a Congressional Bill in 1974!!!! It was not because of the tooling (drills, taps, hones, mills, etc) cost to manufacturing would be too great, plus the cost changing dies and patterns to make Metric-standard structural shapes (round and rectangular tubing, pipe, I-beams, W-beams, C-channel, etc) would kill the steel/metal forming industries.
I know of NO steel mill in the USA today that produces metric-standard sized metal. (They will "cut/machine/grind" English-dimensioned bars to metric dimensions) It all comes from Europe or Asia.
We (the USA) have no clue on how long a meter is, how big is a liter, or how much a kilogram weighs simply because of our "unfamiliarity" (IE, actual hands-on day-in-day-out experience) in using it, UNLESS we convert it to an English (Imperial) System of equivalent-measurement (length/volume/weight) we`ve used all the time. (Yes, I do that because of my mid-70`s English System-based measurement drafting/mechanical design training and 35-years of manufacturing career experience. Inches and fractions of an inch are my life, and I know that 1/8 of an inch is 0.125 inches on a digital CAD system)

Makes me wonder where manufacturing in the USA would be today if it had!!! (More ramblings by another old man )
 
Accumulator said:
This discussion of the seemingly obvious reminds me of when I had to waste a couple lectures explaining such stuff to my (college) students before they could apply the Programming I was there to teach.

And that Product-Into-Water...sheesh, I wouldn`t have survived childhood without knowing that by third grade.

Metric was coming on strong then too, they taught both English/Metric side-by-side in my gradeschool. I still know *exactly* how long a centimeter/decimeter is just as well as I know an inch.

Eh...OK, sorry, end of Old Guy Rant :o
Click to expand...

Interesting... do you still use Metric today with your detailing??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top