Do acrylic paint sealants protect car from uv?

[sito]

Do paint sealants protect paint from uv? Are all sealants prone to scratch?

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using AG Online

[WRAPT C5Z06]

Do paint sealants protect paint from uv? Are all sealants prone to scratch?

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using AG Online
Yes, they will protect from UV rays. They will NOT prevent scratching of the paint.

[FUNX650]

If the acrylic Sealants contain UV protectors/absorbers/etc...
Then there will be some "built-in protection" provided for the car.

Conversely, if the acrylic Sealants do no contain any of the above listed UV protectors/absorbers/etc...there'll be "no built-in protection" provided for the car.

Keep in mind the more reflective the surface of the car's protection product, the more UV-rays that will be bounced back into the atmosphere.

Think about how a mirror's finish bounces back if not 100%, then about as close as you can get to 100%. The closer a car's surface protection can come to this 100%, mirror-like finish...then the more UV-rays that can be bounced back: providing some protection.

This is a never-ending battle, however.


Bob

[PiPUK]

Precisely Bob. To be honest, I have not seen a single proof of UV protection claims and question whether there is any truth to most of them or whether the brands know that people want said protection but also know that they have no way of finding out whether it exists or not.

[allenk4]

If the acrylic Sealants contain UV protectors/absorbers/etc...
Then there will be some "built-in protection" provided for the car.

Conversely, if the acrylic Sealants do no contain any of the above listed UV protectors/absorbers/etc...there'll be "no built-in protection" provided for the car.

Keep in mind the more reflective the surface of the car's protection product, the more UV-rays that will be bounced back into the atmosphere.

Think about how a mirror's finish bounces back if not 100%, then about as close as you can get to 100%. The closer a car's surface protection can come to this 100%, mirror-like finish...then the more UV-rays that can be bounced back: providing some protection.

This is a never-ending battle, however.


Bob

Great point

I honestly never considered that variable

A dull surface, absorbs more UV

I wonder if perfectly polished CC will fail faster if itis never washed?

[Setec Astronomy]

Precisely Bob. To be honest, I have not seen a single proof of UV protection claims and question whether there is any truth to most of them or whether the brands know that people want said protection but also know that they have no way of finding out whether it exists or not.

Optimum Car Wax is patented and contains a UV inhibitor. Of course, IIRC the patent pertained to keeping the components of the product together, not whether the UV inhibitor is of any value or whether it was the first product to have a UV inhibitor, but I'd have to guess Dr. G had something in a QUV for it. I believe it was his first product, also known as Sun Wax.

[PiPUK]

Don't forget that visual light reflectivity is not the same as uv. There are any number of examples of things which behave in opposite ways between visual and uv wavelengths.

[Setec Astronomy]

I have not seen a single proof of UV protection claims

These are the patents associated with OCW:

United States Patent: 6685765 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=18&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=Ghodoussi.INNM.&OS=IN/Ghodoussi&RS=IN/Ghodoussi)

United States Patent: 6669763 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=19&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=Ghodoussi.INNM.&OS=IN/Ghodoussi&RS=IN/Ghodoussi)

Although only one of those contains the UV absorber claim, I doubt the patent has any "proof" that it works, although Optimum may have tested that.

[PiPUK]

These are the patents associated with OCW:

United States Patent: 6685765 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=18&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=Ghodoussi.INNM.&OS=IN/Ghodoussi&RS=IN/Ghodoussi)

United States Patent: 6669763 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=19&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=Ghodoussi.INNM.&OS=IN/Ghodoussi&RS=IN/Ghodoussi)

Although only one of those contains the UV absorber claim, I doubt the patent has any "proof" that it works, although Optimum may have tested that.

Sorry, I know that Optimum have patents and I would tend to believe their claims ahead of others however, it remains that I have not seen any actual measurements of how much protection they provide. Can anyone here comment on just what degree such a product protects? I may be wrong but I have never even seen information to this effect - I think many consumers will be assuming that 'UV protection' means that a product blocks UV when that is not actually the case.

Since you had me read them, I am quite surprised by the patents. Were those actually granted and still active? It strikes me that a whole lot of the info in there is just generic and would be known to any expert in the field. I am not sure what parts of the patents would not be able to be dug out of product literature from manufacturers or out of printed literature.

[Setec Astronomy]

Since you had me read them, I am quite surprised by the patents. Were those actually granted and still active? It strikes me that a whole lot of the info in there is just generic and would be known to any expert in the field. I am not sure what parts of the patents would not be able to be dug out of product literature from manufacturers or out of printed literature.

That's about the norm, isn't it? Oddly, I was just watching a YouTube video recently about automotive battery charging/testing and the "author" was talking about a patented battery charger that he thought was hooey, and he said something like "let me tell you a secret, you can get a patent for anything, and it doesn't even have to work".

Anyway, yes, those patents are still active (I think) and are listed on the current OCW bottle. The viewer I was using for the patents is a little flaky, but there is test data at the end (may have to use the "next" button) which shows a tested formulation (presumably what became Sun Wax/OCW) reducing UV A+B transmission by 43.2% 5 days after application, and having more gloss retention than untreated panels after 1497 hours in the QUV Weatherometer.

If I read it right, the durability test (which apparently is what was used to generate the 5 month claim on the bottle) was done on a sample without the UV inhibitor...which may be why the actual product with the UV inhibitor doesn't seem to last that long.

Also, if I'm reading right, the crux of the patent isn't putting UV stuff in the wax (which I'm sure had been thought of/done before), it's doing it in a spray wax in a way that it actually stays on the paint after you buff.

Anyway, there is some test data there, so at least there is someone who has done testing in that regard. What the real world import of that is, is another story. Kind of like arguing about motor oils. But hey, that's what forums are for, right?

[MattPersman]

But wait there's more... Ultra-Gard UV Suncreen Shield come on it's trademarked supposedly, but I couldn't find anything about it in a brief search and no pat numbers on the back of the bottle

[Setec Astronomy]

But wait there's more... Ultra-Gard UV Suncreen Shield come on it's trademarked supposedly, but I couldn't find anything about it in a brief search and no pat numbers on the back of the bottle

Well, my bottle of Duragloss 151 has UV Enviroshield® in it, so there!

[MattPersman]

Is yours "easy to use" though?

[Setec Astronomy]

Is yours "easy to use" though?

It says "no other polish is easier", does that count?

EDIT: But yours says "world's best car polish", so I guess I can't win this one :(

[MattPersman]

For fun sake here are some random UV protectors and one that's not but an old cult classic

Twin 111 one is yellow one is blue ?