Coating vs Waxing

Coating vs Waxing

Post by loli » Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:46:20


See FluoroPolymeric Coating By Leonid Kuzmin
http://kuzmin.se/pgs/fp_drum_en.html
 
 
 

Coating vs Waxing

Post by gr » Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:40:47


Quote:
> See FluoroPolymeric Coating By Leonid Kuzmin
> http://kuzmin.se/pgs/fp_drum_en.html

Sounds a little like NotWax a liquid teflon wipe.

 
 
 

Coating vs Waxing

Post by Jay » Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:46:31


Quote:

> >http://kuzmin.se/pgs/fp_drum_en.html

> Sounds a little like NotWax a liquid teflon wipe.

I'm hoping someone with reputation actually tries this. He's using an
angle grinder at 5000 rpm, which I'm sure generates quite a bit of
heat. So this seems like rotocorking or superrotocorking. Also, I'm
confused why he would do some light metal scraping (spactula?) after
the fluoro. Finally, I think Kuzmin is missing the idea that wax
wearing off the ski will make the ski faster. Downhillers slobber on
the Cera expecting it to last only a few seconds. They don't do that
because they enjoy blowing money.I started corking in Cera over the
top of an ironed in applicaiton, and I believe that's faster since the
skis slow 15-20 km later.

Jay

 
 
 

Coating vs Waxing

Post by loli » Tue, 24 Jan 2012 07:58:27

Quote:
>. Finally, I think Kuzmin is missing the idea that wax
> wearing off the ski will make the ski faster.

I thanks Kuzmin for having brought to the attention of everyone a fact
that was well documented by the P-Tex manufacturer from the
beginning :
Wax absorbtion is near null.

Indeed, the information is there, at CPS (Formery Gurit, formerly IMS)
http://www.cps-gmbh.net/p-tex-sintered.php
A total of 1,2g (!!) goes into a whole P-Tex 4000 ski base.

So even if a sizable amount out of that 1,2g wears out the base, I
don't think it's something I will rely on.
Unless someone comes out and demonstrate that this very small amout of
wax act as catalyst or something alike.

Moreover, having seen racers at the 50km Olympic skate race allowed to
change up to 4 times their skis, the entire world now knows that high
performance wax does not "wear" out the base, it simply goes out quite
quickly.

I learn from you jay, the waxing paradox which is trying to bond a
highly repelent component (fluor) onto another highly repelent
component (UHMWPE).
,done by mean of "wax", which in return is not so good in le long run
(non abrasive resistant, prone to capture dust and less
hydrophophobic).
I'm not chemist but Kuzmin's idea to achieve a fluoro coating w/o wax
is something promising, until we get full FP bases.

 
 
 

Coating vs Waxing

Post by runcyclexcsk » Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:42:27


Quote:


> > >http://kuzmin.se/pgs/fp_drum_en.html

> > Sounds a little like NotWax a liquid teflon wipe.

Oh, no. Pseudoscience is back again.

Just order a roll of single-sided Teflon tape from McMaster and tape
it to the bottom of the skis if you want a teflon coating w/o waxing.

 
 
 

Coating vs Waxing

Post by runcyclexcsk » Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:43:41

Quote:
>I am not chemist but Kuzmin's idea ...

Neither is Kuzmin
 
 
 

Coating vs Waxing

Post by gr » Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:48:46


Quote:



>>>> http://SportToday.org/

>>> Sounds a little like NotWax a liquid teflon wipe.

> Oh, no. Pseudoscience is back again.

> Just order a roll of single-sided Teflon tape from McMaster and tape
> it to the bottom of the skis if you want a teflon coating w/o waxing.

1.2 grams of wax being absorbed sounds like a lot to me! The base is
quite dense, formed from powdered p-tex melted (sintered) together, so
there is a very low percentage of open space  to absorb wax (which is
good or else you have foam *** and it will damage much more easily).
This 1.2 grams of wax can now leach out of the ski very slowly, causing
a wax layer a few molecule thick. The classic "dry base white look" is a
good indicator that  the  wax has left the working surface of the ski
and needs to be renewed. Most waxes seem to last  quite a long time
before this happens.
gr
 
 
 

Coating vs Waxing

Post by loli » Sat, 28 Jan 2012 02:03:02

Quote:
> there is a very low percentage of open space ?to absorb wax

Chemists say that wax goes in there by dilution. There is no "open
space" nor pores in the UHMWPE.
By cooling done the base, a small amount of wax wears out the base.
I'm not aware of another possible process to "un-dilute"  in that
case.

So if a small amount of 1.2g sounds a lot to you, OK fine. I prefer
not to rely on that.

BTW, my kuzmin-preped bases never show the 'classic "dry base white
look" '.

Maybe good stone grinders exists, but I have not one at hand and I
like to do things myself.
So, I've thrown away my custom-made hot-box and swapped for a pair of
scrappers.
At least I've gained a lot of room in my garage.

 
 
 

Coating vs Waxing

Post by gr » Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:16:06


Quote:

>> there is a very low percentage of open space  to absorb wax

> Chemists say that wax goes in there by dilution. There is no "open
> space" nor pores in the UHMWPE.

Is it still a sintered base?
 
 
 

Coating vs Waxing

Post by loli » Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:46:57

Quote:
> Is it still a sintered base?

Yes it is.

Mr Urs Geissbhler has been quoted by Leonid Kuzmin and also there by
Alan Shepard : http://www.escnordic.org.uk/ (Myths, then pores)

...

Quote:

>Urs Geissbhler
>Chemical Engineer
>Research & Development Manager
>IMS Kunststoff AG
>Rtimoosstrasse 5
>CH-3076 Worb
>SWITZERLAND
>in which he said,
>"there are absolutely no pores in press sintered UHMWPE base material."

.....
 
 
 

Coating vs Waxing

Post by gr » Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:08:18

That's quite interesting!  I expected, due to the nature of sintered
material, that some gaps (really small!) would exist between the melted
together particles.

Here are bits and pieces I found:

Strange: http://www.ims-plastics.com/  comes up as a page in Asian
characters and lemon slices. It seems to be a foreign
exchange/investment site.

http://www.compositesconsultants.com/cats/Quick.php?MID=244  lists IMS
Kunstsoff in Austria, as being Part of the Gurit Composite Technologies
Group of Gurit-Heberlein and having the same (above (hijacked?) website.

http://www.escnordic.org.uk/myths/pores.htm   is circa 2007

----------------------
This page has no listing for  wax absorption for extruded P-tex
http://www.cps-gmbh.net/p-tex-extruded.php

This page for sintered P-Tex does list wax absorption to P-Tex
http://www.cps-gmbh.net/p-tex-sintered.php

The data sheets on these pages show the same thing (no absorption
listing for extruded)

This seems to indicate sintered P-Tex absorbs wax, while extruded does not.

Perhaps the name "pores" is incorrect? It seems that sintered P-Tex does
indeed absorb wax (at least the 1.2 grams previously mentioned.)

I guess the question then is: Is the absorbed wax actually doing anything.

A simple example from my own experience in using a variety of xc skis
(some with quite old plastic bases) is that if they are completely
unwaxed, they end up having ice stick to them, so it seems that wax is
doing something useful.


Quote:
>> Is it still a sintered base?

> Yes it is.

> Mr Urs Geissbhler has been quoted by Leonid Kuzmin and also there by
> Alan Shepard : http://www.escnordic.org.uk/ (Myths, then pores)

> ...


>> Urs Geissbhler
>> Chemical Engineer
>> Research&  Development Manager
>> IMS Kunststoff AG
>> Rtimoosstrasse 5
>> CH-3076 Worb
>> SWITZERLAND

>> in which he said,

>> "there are absolutely no pores in press sintered UHMWPE base material."
> .....