Graphene Coating Attracting Dust Issues?

[Z06-Goose]

Wow, that's a Malco product? And good luck on the merging.

Malco makes solid products. The regular ceramic is incredible, they have a long lasting protection and shines beautifully. It’s my favorite ceramic coating and trust me, I’ve tried dozens of them.

[PaulMys]

Moderators: could you please merge this thread with this one? —>>> Graphene Coating Attracting Dust Issues?

Yeah, good luck with the whole "Moderator" thing. Seems they left a long time ago............

[Bill D]

I recall the days when I moderated on Autopia. We would merge threads no problem.

[Optimus Grime]

Yes, and not. There are very few authentic Graphene Coatings in the market.
There are quite a few companies selling "Graphene" by name only, with zero visual of any graphite in it. The real Graphene coatings are usually dark, and not crystal clear.

I’m not too sure about this. I watched a two hour podcast on the benefits of graphene and for starters, none of these coatings are graphene. They contain reduced graphene oxide but are marketed as graphene coatings because reduced graphene oxide ceramic coating just doesn’t have a marketable ring to it. As far as the color, that’s fake as well. The graphene oxide is in suspension and is clear but deactivated graphene is added to give it the dark appearance, another marketing trick. I’m not saying graphene coatings don’t work. My first “real” coating was a graphene one but I didn’t find it any better than regular ceramic coatings.

[Z06-Goose]

I’m not too sure about this. I watched a two hour podcast on the benefits of graphene and for starters, none of these coatings are graphene. They contain reduced graphene oxide but are marketed as graphene coatings because reduced graphene oxide ceramic coating just doesn’t have a marketable ring to it. As far as the color, that’s fake as well. The graphene oxide is in suspension and is clear but deactivated graphene is added to give it the dark appearance, another marketing trick. I’m not saying graphene coatings don’t work. My first “real” coating was a graphene one but I didn’t find it any better than regular ceramic coatings.

Graphene, the way it’s been marketed you may look at it as the bigger brother of the nano ceramic coatings -longer lasting and stronger.

Two years or so ago, Dr.Beasley was working on developing a graphene coating. It’s on YouTube, I’m away from home if I have time later, I would look up that video and post it. Anyway, in that video Dr.Beasley talks about how difficult it is to develop graphene for his line of product and he went on to explain in details the process.
Now, why am I saying this?
Well, my first impression was that it looked like a complicated process, then I started to wonder how’s everybody is now offering Graphene. It makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Especially since to my knowledge Dr. Beasley has not launched any graphene coatings into the market. Maybe he has, I haven’t looked it up lately.

In conclusion, I’m with you, you have to do your own due diligence when looking at the graphene industry.

[BudgetPlan1]

In conclusion, I’m with you, you have to do your own due diligence when looking at the graphene industry.

What I get from all of this Graphene stuff is:

1. Current technology does not allow for any fundamentally significant level of true Graphene to be incorporated into a coating. And given anecdotal mentions of Graphene in commercial/industrial applications, incorporating true advances in the technology into a glass-bottle coating would be prohibitively expensive if even possible.

2. Any real or perceived benefits of a graphene coating have very little (if anything) to do with any trace amount of graphene in it.

3. The functional foundation of any graphene coating is basically the same as a ceramic, likely Siloxane/Polysiloxane/Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) or Polysilazanes.

So if we bake a ‘Graphene Coating Cake’ the cake batter itself is the same as if we baked a ‘Ceramic Coating Cake’ and the graphene in the cake is not significant enough to even be considered the frosting on the cake but rather merely the handful of ‘sprinkles’ on top of the frosting on top of the cake. Maybe.

I kinda view it as using a ceramic coating that for some reason has an extra word on the label, and merely taking up space on that label is likely the greatest visible contribution ‘graphene’ *currently* makes to the overall satisfaction. That said, given all other factors being equal w/ any particular ‘graphene’ coating vs a favored ceramic, perhaps look at it like the oft-debated use of a foam cannon…it doesn’t hurt and maybe, just maybe, it would help to have the graphene in there…IF the positive aspects of it (real or perceived) fit your particular situation. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances!

Methinks just because it says `graphene` on the label doesnt make it a bad product but perhaps merely a questionably marketed one. The graphene coating I had on my car was very good overall, had some great attributes…but not due to the graphene IMO. That aspect of it (graphene and waterspots) didn`t pan out but it was otherwise a solid performer, quite good actually.

And for me, that`s what is kinda sad about the current graphene landscape; sensationalist marketing is gonna drag down some otherwise good products just because they have the world `graphene` on the label.

Another aspect that is worth noting (to me, anyway) is the lack of graphene in the catalogs of coating ‘heavy hitters’ such as CarPro, Gyeon, Feynlab, Optimum and Gtechniq, some of whom have openly questioned the value of graphene given it’s manufacturing limitations at this time.

Interesting topic for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[PaulMys]

What I get from all of this Graphene stuff is:

1. Current technology does not allow for any fundamentally significant level of true Graphene to be incorporated into a coating. And given anecdotal mentions of Graphene in commercial/industrial applications, incorporating true advances in the technology into a glass-bottle coating would be prohibitively expensive if even possible.

2. Any real or perceived benefits of a graphene coating have very little (if anything) to do with any trace amount of graphene in it.

3. The functional foundation of any graphene coating is basically the same as a ceramic, likely Siloxane/Polysiloxane/Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) or Polysilazanes.

So if we bake a ‘Graphene Coating Cake’ the cake batter itself is the same as if we baked a ‘Ceramic Coating Cake’ and the graphene in the cake is not significant enough to even be considered the frosting on the cake but rather merely the handful of ‘sprinkles’ on top of the frosting on top of the cake. Maybe.

I kinda view it as using a ceramic coating that for some reason has an extra word on the label, and merely taking up space on that label is likely the greatest visible contribution ‘graphene’ *currently* makes to the overall satisfaction. That said, given all other factors being equal w/ any particular ‘graphene’ coating vs a favored ceramic, perhaps look at it like the oft-debated use of a foam cannon…it doesn’t hurt and maybe, just maybe, it would help to have the graphene in there…IF the positive aspects of it (real or perceived) fit your particular situation. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances!

Methinks just because it says `graphene` on the label doesnt make it a bad product but perhaps merely a questionably marketed one. The graphene coating I had on my car was very good overall, had some great attributes…but not due to the graphene IMO. That aspect of it (graphene and waterspots) didn`t pan out but it was otherwise a solid performer, quite good actually.

And for me, that`s what is kinda sad about the current graphene landscape; sensationalist marketing is gonna drag down some otherwise good products just because they have the world `graphene` on the label.

Another aspect that is worth noting (to me, anyway) is the lack of graphene in the catalogs of coating ‘heavy hitters’ such as CarPro, Gyeon, Feynlab, Optimum and Gtechniq, some of whom have openly questioned the value of graphene given it’s manufacturing limitations at this time.

Interesting topic for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

^^ I told him to say all of this.^^.

Kidding aside, you nailed it on this one my friend.

Whenever something becomes too popular, you have the fringe outliers trying to "one-up" the proven products with outlandish claims and/or advertising.

Graphene is a Gimmick.

[Coatingsarecrack]

I work in the mattress industry and we see a lot of this. Actually in most marketing you will see this same sensationalism.

There are ALOT of buzzwords here but this mattress is $600 not a lot for a mattress especially for a product supporting 2,people for 8 hours a night everyday.

It probably won’t perform better or worse than other $600 mattress’s

But it has words that are used in more expensive mattress’s and priced more expensive but it is on sale for 40% off. It probably never sells for full price… I would bet it was marked up to be marked down and that the profit margin is very similar to most retail products. That 40% off is not real…

Just how things are sold nowadays.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk