Is Graphene the next big thing for coatings?

[Mike Phillips]

Pick a brand you trust and use their coating, regardless of what it’s called.

This is my standard answer. I get asked a LOT about coatings, usually from the unwashed masses. Here's what I say,

Go with an established brand



Besides that, as they are standing next to me I say,

Turn in a circle.


In the time it took you to turn around in a circle - a new coating has been introduced to the market.


So go with a brand you know and trust.

[Bruno Soares]

Thanks for posting the article. So what would be the best explanation for people seeing the increased benefits when using a "graphene" coating such as better resistance to water spotting for example? I admit I was (maybe still am) on the hype train for the very reason of claimed resistance to water spotting. Thanks

It's probably placebo effect. Mike (The Guz) and Jon (from Forensic Detailing channel), both experimented with Graphene coatings and got water spots just as bad, if not worse, than TiO2/SiO2 coatings. So the hype is just that, a hype. Kinda like Bead Maker.

[EKhatch]

It's probably placebo effect. Mike (The Guz) and Jon (from Forensic Detailing channel), both experimented with Graphene coatings and got water spots just as bad, if not worse, than TiO2/SiO2 coatings. So the hype is just that, a hype. Kinda like Bead Maker.

Thanks. Kind of a bummer because the resistance to water spotting was the only reason I was so excited. lol

[richy]

I found this information to be extremely helpful and not at all surprising. This is from the "blog" section of the Feynlab website:


At Feynlab, we truly believe we have the best products, and a deeper understanding of chemistry than most of our competitors. Occasionally, a marketing term becomes synonymous with a chemical term, and we get asked when we will release a similar product. It is annoying for us at Feynlab when this happens, as we generally try and stay transparent and realistic about what chemistries we use without giving too much information away. However, it can be difficult for customers to distinguish between true chemistries, and terms that sound good but actually have no scientific backing, or have fundamental scientific flaws in their claims.

What Feynlab coatings are composed of is one of our most frequently asked questions. Inquiries into our chemical’s compositions include: Titanium, Siloxane, Silicon Carbide, Silicon Nitride, Silane, Silica, Graphene, “Ceramic” or “Glass.” The answer is none of our coatings are really based on just one type of chemistry, and the majority of the list above is just marketing buzzwords. We take an integrated approach since all types of chemistry have their advantages and disadvantages. For example, having purely Silane based coatings would limit our chemical scope, which would be an overall disadvantage to our long-term chemical potential. Instead, we start with our base resins, then react them in complementary groups to create a balanced and well-preforming coating that combines elements of the best chemistries.

True chemistry or marketing term?

The best way to answer this question is to go through each term one-by-one.
In general, our argument for many of these “miracle” chemical claims is that if they were true, the inventors would have likely received a Nobel Prize by now. They certainly wouldn’t be hawking this technology in the automotive industry, because there would be far better and more lucrative applications of this technology in other industries if they truly yielded what they claim.

....
GRAPHENE

Graphene is the buzzword of 2020, and we are getting a lot of questions about when we will be releasing the “FEYNLAB GRAPHENE” coating. Unfortunately, we won’t be releasing a Graphene coating for automotive paint. We are seeing a similar trend as with Titanium in 2018. It’s the newest marketing term, and people like new!

At the start of this paper, we claimed to have the best understanding of the chemistry used in the industry today. That claim is not just from theory, we try out and experiment with everything, and that is no different with Graphene. We conducted our initial experiments with Graphene in 2015, along with exploring carbon nano tubes and functionalized nano diamonds. The literature showed great potential, especially for the functionalized types of Graphene that have reactive groups.

First, a short description of how companies are making their Graphene coatings. They take Graphene powdered platelets (graphite powder) and mix it into their normal coatings, and they do not try and mislead people about this. They are open about saying they use Graphene in a Polysiloxane coating for example. It’s exceptionally simple to do, there are no adverse reactions, or difficult chemical techniques. It’s just taking a powder and mixing it into a fully formulated coating. This is not unusual, as there are many additives that are added at the end of the process, and Graphene powdered platelets are an additive.

Now back to our experience with Graphene, we realized a fundamental issue. Graphene is unique because it has a large aspect ratio. This means Graphene powder platelets are wafer thin and wide. If we scaled it up, it would be equivalent in size to the layer of grass on a football field, thin but wide. For it to be considered Graphene, the platelets would have to be about 5 micron in width or few nano-meters high. 5 micron is big, and it’s black in color which means it would be visible. Not only in the bottle, but also on the paint. A coating with a 5 micron particle dispersion on paint would absolutely be visible. To give an idea, 5 micron is typically the average size of the abrasive in most polishing compounds. Additionally, 5 microns is typically thicker than most coatings, so the Graphene platelets would most likely be pulled out during the buffing stage. It can be easy to say, “Why don’t you just reduce the Graphene size to nano-scale, so that it would still be colored in the bottle but invisible on the surface, like with other nano-particles?” That’s where the fundamental issue comes in. That can be done, but it would no longer be Graphene. The aspect ratio would be destroyed, and what is left would be carbon black nano-particles. We use carbon black in our FEYNLAB Plastic Black, and it works great for that application. But it’s obviously not recommend for paint.

We still believe that there is potential for Graphene in coatings, but not in thin film coatings for automotive. Graphene requires a thick layer, around the 100 micron mark, to incorporate it. It’s something we may revisit for architectural or industrial applications.

An objective look at some of the claims about Graphene type coatings will show that they don’t make sense.

1.) Improved heat dissipation results in less water spots. One of the advantages of Graphene is Thermal conductivity. It can transfer heat from end to end exceedingly effectively, so if we use our grass analogy from above, it would be very good at transferring heat from one end of the field to the other. In theory, to make a coating that dissipates heat, presumably away from the car, then all the platelets would have to be perfectly perpendicular to the paint and stick upright, which seems unlikely. These films are also extremely thin. The claim that it would have any substantial affect on the thermal conductivity of any surface seems pretty far fetched. Some companies claim “better heat dissipation” from brake calipers when coated. These same companies do flame tests on their hood showing how insulated it is from heat, meaning no heat transfer to paint, thereby no damage. So which one is it? It can’t be both insulated, and transferable.

2.) Increased hydrophobic abilities. This is most likely untrue, there would be equivalent hydrophobic ability in the products before Graphene powder was added.

3.) Graphene coatings form as single thin layer of graphene on the paint. The below illustration shows a Graphene layer being formed on the paint. Similar images are used by companies to illustrate the effect of their product. Unfortunately, however, you will not get this outcome by simply mixing some graphene powdered platelets into your favorite ceramic coating. In fact if you were able to form a single, uniform layer of graphene on the surfaces you would again be in Nobel Prize territory. The applications of that in the electronics industry would be immeasurable.


Illustration showing single layer of graphene on a surface – stock image
Graphene coatings are pretty much just your average every day Ceramic Coating with a bit of powder mixed in. We think we are going to see a lot more companies enter the market with a “Graphene coating”, especially since it is really simple to mix in some Graphene powder into a coating. Feynlab will stick to what we know, and avoid flashy trends. There is potential for Graphene in thicker film coatings, but it seems like there are other easier to use nano-particles that will deliver better performance in thin film or “Ceramic” coatings.

Summary: Is GRAPHENE a real chemistry or a marketing term?
Graphene is real, but graphene in thin film hand applied coatings is 100% a marketing term.

[FUNX650]

I found this information to be extremely helpful
and not at all surprising. This is from the "blog"
section of the Feynlab website:


At Feynlab, we truly believe we have the best
products, and a deeper understanding of chemistry
than most of our competitors.

Occasionally, a marketing term becomes
synonymous with a chemical term, and we
get asked when we will release a similar
product. It is annoying for us at Feynlab
when this happens, as we generally try
and stay transparent and realistic about
what chemistries we use without giving too
much information away. However, it can be
difficult for customers to distinguish between
true chemistries, and terms that sound good
but actually have no scientific backing, or have
fundamental scientific flaws in their claims.

What Feynlab coatings are composed of is one
of our most frequently asked questions. Inquiries
into our chemical’s compositions include: Titanium,
Siloxane, Silicon Carbide, Silicon Nitride, Silane,
Silica, Graphene, “Ceramic” or “Glass.”

The answer is none of our coatings are really based
on just one type of chemistry, and the majority of
the list above is just marketing buzzwords. We take
an integrated approach since all types of chemistry
have their advantages and disadvantages.

For example, having purely Silane based coatings
would limit our chemical scope, which would be an
overall disadvantage to our long-term chemical
potential. Instead, we start with our base resins,
then react them in complementary groups to create
a balanced and well-preforming coating that combines
elements of the best chemistries.

True chemistry or marketing term?

•I found this section of the overall article
to be quite interesting.

-Especially interesting in the way that another
detailing products Manufacturer vainly, IMO,
attempts to separate themselves from:
1.) other less knowledgeable competitors
2.) those that use marketing-jargon/buzzwords
to promote their products/processes—but, IMO,
are just as guilty of using them theirdamselves.

TO WIT:

•(And what with my proclivity to anaphylaxis...)
-I found the above self-aggrandizement by Feynlab
to be so chock-full of buzzwords, that I was tempted
to get out a couple of Epi-Pens!


Bob

[noorth]

•I found this section of the overall article
to be quite interesting.

-Especially interesting in the way that another
detailing products Manufacturer vainly, IMO,
attempts to separate themselves from:
1.) other less knowledgeable competitors
2.) those that use marketing-jargon/buzzwords
to promote their products/processes—but, IMO,
are just as guilty of using them theirdamselves.

TO WIT:

•(And what with my proclivity to anaphylaxis...)
-I found the above self-aggrandizement by Feynlab
to be so chock-full of buzzwords, that I was tempted
to get out a couple of Epi-Pens!


Bob

Why do you have Epi-Pens?

[The Guz]

Thanks for posting the article. So what would be the best explanation for people seeing the increased benefits when using a "graphene" coating such as better resistance to water spotting for example? I admit I was (maybe still am) on the hype train for the very reason of claimed resistance to water spotting. Thanks

BSoares is correct. It is the placebo effect.

It's probably placebo effect. Mike (The Guz) and Jon (from Forensic Detailing channel), both experimented with Graphene coatings and got water spots just as bad, if not worse, than TiO2/SiO2 coatings. So the hype is just that, a hype. Kinda like Bead Maker.

Yup the placebo effect. People are looking for that miracle product. SPS graphene spotted on my car after a month of application. On my coating test, the gangrene coating is spotted just as bad as the "ceramics".

Same can be said when people are saying that the gangrene coatings have a different look such as having more gloss and warmth compared to a ceramic coating. Again it is the placebo effect as side by side nobody would know which is which.

Thanks. Kind of a bummer because the resistance to water spotting was the only reason I was so excited. lol

They still spot. The SPS rep contacted me and we discussed the water spotting issue and he went on to say that they don't claim no water spotting, which I then told him to consider rewording less prone in one section and anti water spotting in another. He then says SPS has a lab claim of 50% less water spotting.

Ethos chimed in on my video and they claimed 80% less water spotting.

To me it seems like they just pulled a number out of their @$$ lol. Anyway they still spot.

If you want to try a graphene infused product then by all means give it a try.

[98CayenneTA]

What about longevity with these Graphene powder infused coatings vs ceramic ?
More specifically holding up to harsh winters, (Minnesota here) daily drivers that see pretty harsh conditions.

On a side note, I have my Trans Am coated with Ethos and like it a lot. Love the look.
I previously had Kamikaze Zipang that I stripped off and loved that coating.

[DUBL0WS6]

A lot of claims are being thrown around like 7 or 10 years durability. How do they know that? How exactly did they test for that? I think it's more hype. If these products really were that good, they'd wouldn't require maintenance sprays.

[BudgetPlan1]

What about longevity with these Graphene powder infused coatings vs ceramic ?
More specifically holding up to harsh winters, (Minnesota here) daily drivers that see pretty harsh conditions.

One of the sticking points for me was that the SPS was a great coating from May thru December, even when I Ignored it for the most part and didn't top it with anything. Come Spring 2020 though (Winter took a LOOONG time to go away this year) it just didn't clean-up/recover as well as the ceramics I have used. Again, though...does that have anything to do with graphene or the other parts of the formulation? Dunno...

On a side note, I have my Trans Am coated with Ethos and like it a lot. Love the look.
I previously had Kamikaze Zipang that I stripped off and loved that coating.

Heresy I say...Heresy!! I now have to block you!!!

Kinda funny, really...we detailing junkies try to science the living crap out of products but at the end of the day, personal preference based upon intangible, non-measurable factors plays a part in what becomes one's favorites (at least for me anyway). All things being equal performance-wise, I just 'feel better' using my favorite products. When I stripped off the SPS and went back to a favorite brand on my daily, I suddenly just plain 'liked' the car a little better. Weird.