Hot Rod Forum banner

Soda Blasting on the cheap

173K views 88 replies 28 participants last post by  poida97 
#1 ·
#52 ·
You could ask the fellow from Eastwood directly.

If the patent has been granted, you can obtain a copy and see just what they have done. Like I said before, patents only protect Eastwood against commercial exploitation. You or anyone can use the patent filing to duplicate the device for your own use, can tell others how to make it, but cannot make it for others. Patent law exists this way to foster innovation while protecting the commercial nature of the use of patents. You may, after duplicating the device, find a better way to do the same thing or it could inspire you to create something entirely new.

From what the fellow said, the device creates a vortex that keeps the media from caking. It's probably $20 worth of hardware and $20,000 of development. Paying $129 seems reasonable for the time and effort required to duplicate it from the patent drawings.

To better answer you original question, a buddy purchased it and it works as advertised, which is to say "like magic". I plan on purchasing one so I don't have to drive so far to use his.

But if you do track down the patent, post a link to it here.
 
#53 ·
Gosh this has been an interesting read.
Somebody asked for facts, so lets get some in the thread.

FACT{ Soda is an entirely different impact method than hard media ranging from ground glass to silica sand. Think of the old PacMan gobbling, and you have a basic idea of how soda hits. That method makes soda ideal for soft deposits, and not worth a damn for hard deposits unless you want to spend a lot of time.

FACT{ Soda operates at far lower pressures than hard medias, and far ower volumes of media per square area than conventional media.

FACT{ Soda blasting will cause yo to have a lot of problems if you get into a warranty claim with most paint manufacturers.

FACT{ Soda residue is NOT a protective film, and thinking it is or even leaving residue in place is a bad practice.

FACT{ there are a minimum of 4 grades of soda used in blasting, each has different properties and delivers differing results.

FACT{ Soda is different enough from hard media that considerable operator learning time is necessary. Generally a good media blasting operator won't transition to soda worth squat.

FACT{ Soda used in blasting is NOT the same as home baking soda in any manner beyond being chemicly the same. The granuels are far different.

FACT{ I'll refrain from commenting on Eastwood's product beyond saying I wouldn't pay 10¢ for it. If it took Eastwoods more than 2 hours to figure out the eductor they need to restudy the subject.

FACT{ Soda requires absolutely DRY air, no if and or but about it. The necessity is far beyond what is delivered by anything short of a refridgerated dryer followed by a descicant dryer.

FACT{ most commercial soda machines employ vibrators to keep the soda moving from the hopper to the mixer.

FACT{ anybody with some knowledge of dry media handling eductors can build a soda blaster similar to a company I'll not mention a second time from a dry powder extinguisher in a home shop.

FACT{ there are multiple manufactures of good soda equipment that is worth the investment if you have work for the machine. Oddly they find no need to keep their mechanisms secret, and are fully aware patents are only worth how much you have to spend on lawyers defending the patent. They sell through rock solid vendors who know the media blasting business.
Some of those vendors have web sites.
http://www.milessupply.com/sandblast.htm
http://www.nortonsandblasting.com/nsbabrasives.html
http://novetas.net/
www.armex.com is the company that makes most soda product, and knows sodablasting better than anyone

FACT{ I don't like twobit hustlers selling crap product!
 
#54 ·
Thanks,Franz©, for adding to the discussion. I feel the need to make two points, however.

The first is that a "fact" deals with a special kind of truth or reality and can be distinguished from opinion or conclusions. You provide all three types, but identify them all as "fact". For example:

Franz© said:
FACT{ Soda operates at far lower pressures than hard medias, and far lower volumes of media per square area than conventional media.
Most reasonable people would agree that was a "fact".

Franz© said:
FACT{ I'll refrain from commenting on Eastwood's product beyond saying I wouldn't pay 10¢ for it. If it took Eastwood's more than 2 hours to figure out the eductor they need to restudy the subject.
Most reasonable people would agree that was an opinion and not a fact.

Franz© said:
FACT{ anybody with some knowledge of dry media handling eductors can build a soda blaster similar to a company I'll not mention a second time from a dry powder extinguisher in a home shop.
Most reasonable people would agree that was a conclusion and not a fact.

NOTE: If you will provide it, a reference to technical information about the design of dry media handling eductors would be an especially useful addition to this thread since it would allow us to build our own soda blaster from a dry powder extinguisher (I have several that are too old to be acceptable to the Fire Marshall).

Second, I believe that your are not making an allowance for the important distinction between hobbyist and commercial equipment. Commercial equipment needs to be very ruggedly built, trouble-free and produce consistent, repeatable results at or above industry standards in a production environment. Such a piece of equipment is the Ace Soda Blaster, Model #101826-A, retailing at $2,300. The Eastwood Soda Blaster, while made of good materials at $300, is intended as hobby equipment.

No professional should consider the purchase and use of the Eastwood blaster to earn their living, just as most hobby users would not consider the purchase of the Ace equipment. We would elect to spend that extra $2000 one something else, if we even had it in the first place.

Your criticisms of the Eastwood blaster imply that you expect absolute parity between the commercial and hobbyist blasters. The more useful question is not whether the Eastwood blaster is a $2000 cheaper drop-in replacement of the Acer blaster (it is not), but whether or not the Eastwood blaster can do an adequate job for the hobby user.

That is a conclusion (and not a fact) that can be determined only buy using it for the purpose it was intended and examining the results. From what I have seen, for $300 it's "good enough" if used properly (and you clearly point out some of the problems any soda blaster must overcome).

Since it is unlikely that many of us will be purchasing and using commercial-grade equipment and you are knowledgeable in soda blasting tools and techniques, what practical advice can you offer that will allow us to get the most out of the Eastwood blaster?
 
#55 · (Edited)
Here is some info about soda blasters.

A guy named "mattythies" has DIY plans for a soda blaster. It's mentioned in this thread: http://www.nastyz28.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2715
The thread is from July 2004, but I'll join the forum and ask him for the plans and for permission to post the plans here if they are still available.

AllSource sells a Soda Blaster Attachment Kit for $150 and you can get one at Northern Tool: http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_6970_200366065_200366065

Ace makes a 10lb. portable soda blaster for $249: http://www.ace-sandblasting.com/soda-blasting.html
as well as their more expensive soda blasters previously mentioned.

Here's United States Patent 7134945, Soda blasting apparatus:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=12&f=G&l=50&co1=OR&d=PTXT&s1="soda+blasting"&s2="soda+blasting"&OS="soda+blasting"+OR+"soda+blasting"&RS="soda+blasting"+OR+"soda+blasting"
or the shorter http://www.socuteurl.com/funnybabyboo

That page also cites other related patents with links to them. No patent was found for Eastwood, so it must not yet be granted. If somebody has a commercial soda blaster, it would be illuminating to know what patents they claim for their device.

Here's a page that discusses a 1941 patent (2261565) for soda blasting and compares it to Buster Blasters' product which uses U.S. Patent 7134945 mentined above: http://sodaworks.com/pages/Research.php

You need a TIFF viewer plug-in for your browser to view the USPTO images.

The patent drawing can also be seen here:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=A3...ts=vqBP2vgSeD&sig=i3HA3K1FvEgFrD6VGTwTXEzO7Ec

A few questions for discussion?

1. How effective is the AllSource kit and how does it compare to the one offered by Eastwood? I would think that with Eastwood claiming its own patent, the devices should be different.

2. How do the $249 Ace portable soda blaster and the Eastwood $300 soda blaster compare?
 
#56 · (Edited)
Thanks again. And thanks for the link to FoxValve.com.

As a technical writer, I'll agree that a lot of "information" is supplied by copywriters whose grasp of the technology behind the product is somewhere south of nothing and their promotion of the product is just greed dressed up in a cheap suit. Still, it's difficult for those among us who are not as knowledgeable as you to separate the from fiction since a lie often looks like (or better than) the truth. It always helps to hear what an experienced professional has to say so we can make a better decision

If I understand you correctly, the inherent problems with soda as a blasting medium can only be overcome with the proper design for the equipment. Anything based on "fire extinguisher" technology will be inferior. And I believe you. Based on the patents I referenced above, it would be interesting to see what designs are used by the top equipment companies.

The question then becomes if I want a device for light duty, small parts, very occasional use and don't want to invest a lot of money, is the Eastwood type equipment adequate? Not the best. Not the most efficient. Just adequate. And what can be done to get the best performance from it while spending the least amount of money? From what I've read, the driest air possible and the correct media are very important. How do we accomplish those goals on a budget?

BTW, I've contacted the fellow with the soda blaster plans, so we'll see what he has to offer.
 
#57 ·
hduff said:
That page also cites other related patents with links to them. No patent was found for Eastwood, so it must not yet be granted. If somebody has a commercial soda blaster, it would be illuminating to know what patents they claim for their device.
I spent about 30 minutes yesterday searching both granted and provisional patents for anything from eastwood, soda blasting, soda blaster, bicarbonate eductor, soda venturi, soda siphon, and on and on. Nothing came up even remotely close. Eastwood's site also doesn't mention the retrofit as patented or patent-pending. I doubt the patent has been granted in under 2 years. It may even have been rejected by now.

I did come across the patent you mentioned and a couple others for mixing media (e.g., soda + plastic).

At any rate, soda blasting at home seems like a huge waste of time and money unless you can get your air really dry or just accept that you get a day or two before you have to throw away the media and clean out the hopper and rinse it and flush it with acetone or some other water-flushing solvent. It may work in AZ but it probably won't work in Seattle. :confused:
 
#58 ·
OK, lets begin with the subject of dry air.

It is important in any situation, from air tools not kept in a heated environment to paint and media blasting.

Dry air isn't impossible to acheive, and can be accomplished fairly cheap even if you can't weld. By can't weld I mean you aren't competent to weld on a pressure vessel, and I have no intention of getting into welding discussions on this site or welding certification either.

Long ago I developed a contraption that you can find on over 100 sites called the "Franzinator". Feel free to google it. 90% of the people who say it can't work have never tried building it. Rest assured, if built to specification it does work. 90% of the people who say it doesn't work did NOT build correctly or did NOT place it in the correct location in the air system.
http://z6.invisionfree.com/ToolBoxTalk/index.php?showtopic=1461
I have developed the device over 40 years and maximized its possibility in my use situation. Slight improvements can be acheived for people needing more seperation because of where they are located. Feel free to ask questions on Toolbox, because I see no point in posting what I have to say on multiple sites.

There have been a boatload of immitators, they didn't adhere to the dimensions and got crap results. For nonweldors there is a plan on Toolbox for the No Welding Required version.

The "Franzinator" is not a 100% air/water seperator.
Subscequently I had a second idea for what is called the Jonsiematic Air polisher. It's fairly well discussed at http://z6.invisionfree.com/ToolBoxTalk/index.php?showtopic=1835&st=0.
Again, feel free to ask questions, same rule applies.

To save somebody typing, copper does not give superior or even equal results to iron in the "Franzinator" because copper is nonradiational by comparison to steel in heat situations.

With a polisher behind a "Franzinator" you will have sufficiently dry air for most aplications, unless you dwell in a swamp.

Since my presumption is nobody here is running a 100CFM compressor and pushing a ¼" tip I see no point in addressing that level of machinery.

In any media blasting situation, water in the air is a problem, regardless of the media. Soda is a 10 on the PITA scale when it comes to moiusture being a problem. Ground glass is about a 3. There is nothing short of dumping rock into a truck that rates a 1 or 2.
Coated sodas are lowering their PITA rating, but not by much.

Soda is easily fracturable, and that means in the hose and gun. Blowing dust out of a hose acheives nothing, unless you're a freak of nature who can't get enough of the taste.

Some of the small soda blasters I've seen in the market appear to attempt to employ the same basic design as a powder fire extinguisher. It's a good idea, BUT, the Bozo designing the machine forgot a few things. Extinguishers are pressurized with either DRY AIR or Nitrogen, and are a limited duration fast dump device. Extinguisher powders also contain a considerable amount of lubricant, generally ground talc. Soda doesn't contain lubricant.

Soda blasting requires metering the media into the airstream. Were the media in a nonpressurized hopper this would be very easy to do, BUT the "designers" have become fascinated with pressurized hoppers because they lack common sense. When you factor in that they pressurize the hopper with the same airsource they use for the blast stream, they screw themselves right out of the box. I've proven this on commercial units.

Metering into an eductor isn't hard to accomplish, most commercial machines do it with a pinwheel, as is shown on thepage I previously posted on dry media eductors. It works well until clumping occurrs in the pot. Most commercial machines try to solve clumping by employing a vibrator or thumper. It works some days. The clowns marketing homeowner soda blasters for a few hundred bucks attempt to solve clumping and metering with sized ports and dump valves. I don't know your level of frustration before you kick something out the door, but mine is failry short. I have no desire to stop blasting to clear a clump every couple minutes, and I long ago stopped listening to excuses from manufacturers and vendors.

Bottom line at this point can a small soda blaster for home use be made in somebody's garage? Sure it can. How many hours are you willing to spend making it? I've got a few ideas on what will work, but no inclination to spend 100+ hours making one and I have a fairly complete shop available.

My first experience shooting soda was more than 30 years ago. I told the "engineers" and the people who wrote the spec it was the wrong media for the job. They knew more than I did, and they signed off on my objections. The smart people were the first to run when the cloud lofted into the sky, and they were noplace to be found when the firetrucks arrived. They also paid the bill for all the load of soda, as well as the cost of doing the job correctly.

Blast media has come a long way over the last 30 years, and there are many purpose specific media, including granulated dry ice. For some unknown reason in the last 2 or 3 years a fascination with soda has developed, particularly in respect to cars. I can't see a single benefit to blowing soda toward a car, it's the wrong damn media. If you want to clean caked on grease soda is a good choice, but not for removing paint. Paint manufacturers warn against using soda on a vehicle, and won't warranty product if soda is used.


BTW, don't ever let an insurance carrier talk you into mold remediation by sodablasting. Soda doesn't kill the mold, but it gets the carrier off the hook when the mold consumes your hovel.
 
#59 ·
Soda blasting aside, I have a chronic problem with moisture since my shop is only a few miles from Cape Henry, where the Atlantic meets the Chesapeake Bay and is bordered by the Great Dismal Swamp to the south just for good measure. I drain buckets of H2O from my compressor in the summertime and the blasting cabinet is almost unusable in August.

I found the Franzinator a compelling idea and collected a number of informational links in my blog at http://www.route60garage.com/ just to keep track of them.

Franz© is also quite the prolific author of some good HOWTO info at http://z6.invisionfree.com/ToolBoxTalk/index.php?showforum=28

I had the chance yesterday to use a friend's Eastwood soda blaster to clean up some vintage auto trim. It did a nice job except for the problems with moisture. I would not want to use it on anything large; yes it would be a PITA.

Thanks for the info, Franz©.
 
#60 · (Edited)
hduff said:
I had the chance yesterday to use a friend's Eastwood soda blaster to clean up some vintage auto trim. It did a nice job except for the problems with moisture. I would not want to use it on anything large; yes it would be a PITA.
Moisture in air lines how does it get there? Well let me first explain a little bit of physics. Air that is below the temperature of 32 degrees Fahrenheit can not hold water because the water freezes and falls out. So the opposite holds true: The hotter the air the more water it will hold unless you are in an area that is very dry. In humid areas as the air temperature rises it absorbs more water. Now on a humid day of 80% that means that the air is saturated with water vapor to a percent of 80. Ok so our air compressors take in humid air and compress it by about 9 times. Water does not compress so it winds up in our compressor air tanks and lines. Also compressed air is hot and when it leaves the air compressor it starts to cool and this also causes the water to drop or fall out.

Now with all of that said how do we work around it? Well you can buy one of the high dollar driers that cool the air to below freezing before it enters the compressor or you can buy one that cools the air after it leaves the compressor. These are very expensive but they do a good job. They are actually refrigeration units. I once worked at a shop that had one and it was great. Another way is a trap or filter that uses desiccant. These work good but you have to change the desiccant cartridge from time time and they too are kind of pricey. I have seen some of the high dollars units (thousands of dollars) that contained both desiccant and chilled the air.

I've been at it now for going on forty years and I have fought moisture all along the way. I don't do much blasting any more but I still paint and I use a plasma cutter attached to shop air and the moisture can really create problems in all of these. For years I have used the old standby toilet paper air filter (real cheap) and I usually replace it for every job. I have tried all kinds of traps and made a few of my own and some worked and some didn't. But a few years ago I came up with another idea. I have already posted it in another thread so I just copied and pasted it here:

Now something that you guys may not know is to use an old house steam radiator as a water trap. You can pick them up cheap at building wrecker yards. They can hold a lot of pressure and usually all that is wrong with them is bad fittings and you will change all of that anyway. Plumb it so the air from the compressor goes into the bottom at one end and leaves at the top of the other. Depending on what type you find you may have to drill and tap a hole to accomplish this. You may even have to use a bung and this could be brazed on or silver soldered. Place it so that air can get to both sides and put a water trap down low at the outlet side or end that is farthest away from the compressor, I have an automatic spitter valve on mine. Be sure to slope it about an inch toward the spitter. On hot humid days I put a shop fan on one side of it but I have found that this is not necessary during the winter months. You will be surprised at how much water it collects.

For insurance I still use a fresh roll of toilet paper in the toilet paper filter when ever I paint a car but the steam radiator works great for everything else.

I hope that this helps with the water problem.
Chris
 
#61 ·
Chris Kemp said:
Now on a humid day of 80% that means that the air is saturated with water vapor to a percent of 80.
You did good; the infield fly rule is often better understood than "relative humidity". To more fully explain, here are two links to Wikipedia; read the first to understand "partial pressure", the second to understand relative humidity. Sadly the article ignores he effects of increased pressure, and instead focuses on decreased pressure, from sea level to high altitudes. But you can get a sense of what happens by substituting our shops for the mountains and the compressor tank for seal level and then thinking backwards. (The Wikipedia author also makes an interesting observation about fog.)

Mercifully, there won't be a test on this stuff and we can use these devices whether we understand it or not. But the more we understand how they work, the better we can use them.

Physics mumbo-umbo aside, it seems to me that all we are doing is manipulating the dew point, so the water vapor (a gas) will coalesce into liquid water so it can be separated from the air (still a gas). To do this, we can change the temperature or the pressure or both. So the greater the pressure difference or the greater the temperature difference, the greater the separation effect.

Another way is to use chemistry, which is how these work:
http://www.vanairsystems.com/products_single_stationary.html
A homemade version of that might be useful because of the limits to mechanical separation.

BTW, here's a physics experiment I encourage everybody to try. Open the cap on a cold long-neck bottle of beer. Watch the vapor form inside the neck. Because of the rapid drop in pressure and the temperature difference, a cloud formed inside the neck of the bottle. As the pressure equalizes, the cloud disappears. Repeat the experiment with enthusiasm as many times as possible. After all, it's being done for physics and science. This is what's going on inside these devices.

Given where they are placed in the system, I suspect that the Franzinator is primarily a pressure device and the radiator is primarily a temperature device.

Of course, nothing happens when the system is not moving air. The most happens just as the air begins to move and then less happens as air continues to move as the system reaches pressure equilibrium. I suspect that pressure devices reach equilibrium much quicker than temperature devices.

The sad fact is that with the proper tools and time and effort, we could determine how well each of these devices work, how they really work and how to best use them. There's no incentive for manufacturers to do it because who is going to pay big $$$ for something you could whip up in your garage over the weekend no matter how well it works? So what happens is that Franz© refines his idea over 30 years and all sorts of garage lore develops about what to do and we discuss it a lot and somebody gets an idea to make it better and so it goes. It really doesn't matter what the science is, we use what works.

Great info, guys. Thanks.
 
#62 ·
hduff said:
BTW, here's a physics experiment I encourage everybody to try. Open the cap on a cold long-neck bottle of beer. Watch the vapor form inside the neck. Because of the rapid drop in pressure and the temperature difference, a cloud formed inside the neck of the bottle. As the pressure equalizes, the cloud disappears. Repeat the experiment with enthusiasm as many times as possible.
I loved doing this experiment! Why couldn't you have been my physics teacher? In doing this experiment I made a few observations on my own. The most noted one was that after repeated test of opening the cap and observing the vapor cloud form inside the neck of the bottle a larger cloud started to form in my conscience and I can't remember much of the experiment after that. I kept a log but after the first few sentences it became illegible. I guess I will have to repeat the experiment.

But seriously, if the Eastwood guy doesn't want to tell us what his product does to keep the soda flowing then we need to develop one of our own. Sure sounds like we have enough genius up here to do just that. We definitely have the water problem solved we just need to figure out how to keep the soda flowing. Possibly an agitator of some sort or a device in the bottom of the canister that works like a flower sifter.
 
#63 ·
Ok, I have a question about all of this. Can I use soda to blast a roof that has had a factory installed vinyl roof on it with out it warping the metal? I'm sure that you are all aware that when the big three produced a car that had a factory installed vinyl roof they would cut corners and did not paint the roof. Of all of these types of roofs the ones that I have encountered only have a thin coat of primmer under the vinyl area. Now I don't know where you guys are at and if it has caused problems for you, but down here in the south I have had to do a lot of roof repair due to rust. There was one car an 81 Buick century that I actually replaced the roof on it with another one from the junk yard that had not had a vinyl roof installed on it. A lot of people that restore these late seventies and early eighties cars do not want the vinyl roof put back on them so it creates a lot of work in getting the metal really straight. I have sand blasted and bead blasted but I am not educated in soda blasting. When you sand blast a big sheet of metal such as a roof it will warp it. If soda blasting will remove the rust and what little bit of primer that the factory put on these cars without warping the sheet metal, that would be great!
 
#66 ·
Franz© said:
Well Chris, when you can read this, recognize he couldn't be a Physics Teacher because he's a teck writer, and I won't even address the problems I've had with that group over the years.
Never taught physics per se, just elementary school.

My technical book here: http://www.amazon.com/Red-Hat-Linux-Fedora-Unleashed/dp/0672326299 ; I'm still getting royalties. The book makes a great Christmas gift for loved ones (according to the publisher) and is handy to level tables, anchor papers in the breeze and swat big bugs (I've used it for all three).

Tech writing is difficult and often not done well because the people who are very knowledgeable in a field usually have poor communication skills and typically see writing "documentation" as an annoyance. While a good tech writer won't be an expert in a tech field, they should be smart enough to understand it, because translating "tech speak" to English is mandatory. I always want to make my tech writing a compelling read rather than the usual dry and terse drivel that passes for most tech writing. Publishers don't want to pay for that, so I don't make my living doing it.

Having written tech articles yourself, you understand how hard it is to communicate a technical idea to the masses.

Anyway, given your proscription against car guys using soda, what would you use soda for?
 
#67 ·
Franz© said:
AGAIN I ask, what the hell is so special about soda in the car community? I see people in a frenzy trying to use the wrong product.
Like many things in this hobby, media attention is key. There have been many magazine articles demonstrating soda blasting. At fist, it looks like soda blasting eliminates a lot of the problems that non-professionals using blasting equipment encounter. No warpage. No damage. Easy non-EPA-involved disposal of residue. Doesn't matter that improved skill and a better understanding of existing blast media could solve the problem -- it's the new "holy Grail". These article never mention any down-side. Then when attention is heightened, businesses see a new opportunity to sell stuff whether it right or wrong. They buy advertising in the magazines, who run more soda blasting articles. And so it goes. And often without the accompanying handbasket.
 
#68 ·
very interesting stuff,very intelligent people.I went back to the begining of this thread and read it to the end.Heres what I learned 1) after three beers I forgot about the experiment ,had to do it all over again,after three more beers I couldnt see the neck of the bottle so clearly and I cant remember last nights results so my experiment failed. 2) I can buy enough chemical striper for 300.00 to strip five cars it takes 4-8 hours to completly strip most cars 3)I'll stick to the chemical stripers nobody seems to debate weather or not they work,blasters are messy and I havent heard any good reasons to switch,I would like to hear some though. I have a 90lb pressure blaster and only used it once two years ago I blasted a sub frame with it but needed to build a plywood box to contain the used sand .Other than blasting frames I really have no use for it.There was a company around here that soda blasted cars for 1200.00 since the chemical striper is around 50.00 and a good days pay is 200.00 I feel even more strongly about chemical stripping after reading this thread I save 1000.00 on each car, I'm a do it yourself kinda guy too. Dont get me started on eastwood snap-on 3-m etc...........I'll keep my money
 
#69 ·
deadbodyman said:
)I'll stick to the chemical stripers nobody seems to debate weather or not they work,blasters are messy and I havent heard any good reasons to switch,I would like to hear some though.
Keep going with the cloud-making experiment. My theory is that somewhere out there is a beer that will not produce a cloud and I will eventually find it through repeated trails.

The only caveat to chemical stripping I'm aware of is that is gets into places that are difficult to get it out of like inside braces and rolled edges. I pressure wash and neutralize the stripper per packages directions, but some always gets left and will ruin paint. The more you pay for the paint job, the more likely this is, it seems. Of course, YMMV. If you are careful and don't get sloppy and can rinse the part thoroughly, it's not bad.

Blasting bigger stuff is a different kind of messy. I've heard that plastic media is good for big pieces of non-rusty sheet metal (for the heat), but have only experience with black oxide and glass beads so far and have not blasted any large panels. Once I get my moisture problems solved, I should probably get some different types of media and experiment.

I have a problem here being so close to salt water that freshly exposed steel will rust quickly so I apply OSPHO ASAP, do the work on it right away, re-OSPHO and clean and prime it. Anybody use anything better?

I have yet to strip and entire body, but have two projects waiting that need it . One is a fiberglass body painted with spray-can enamel, the other a heavily rusted and bondo'd '54 Triumph TR2. Chemical stripper looks like the way to go on the fiberglass and I'm still not sure on the other.

Keep making clouds.
 
#70 · (Edited)
dont use stripper on fiberglass ,it'll melt it ,I got it on a glass header one time,what a mess.I've been doing this for years,First put two or three layers of 3/4 tape over all the gaps so none gets in the jambs.Second put three layers of paper in front of hood back of deck and over the doors,layer them on top of each other.Some paints like laquers and the real cheap stuff at your local 99.00 paint shops will turn a watery viscosity and will need a place to run hence the three layers of paper as one fills up tear it off and the next one is there waiting use a few differnt putty knifes and a razor scraper to get under the first layer of epoxy or whatever was used,its simple,after a bit of practice anyone can do a car a day.As far as the ospho thats exactly what I use and will continue to use any time I work with bare metal, but some very intelligent people will tell you a hundred reasons why it cant work all of whom have never used it ,so be warned about printing the name OSHPO is like saying the devils prayer be ready for a fight BTW I use aircraft striper,in a blue can.I'll have to wait till next weekend to try the experiment again ,this time I'll get a couple of buddies and use my wife as a control
 
#72 ·
So from all of this I am concluding that Eastwwood over charges and soda blasting is great for polishing, cleaning and mold removal. I already have walnut shells and eraser dust so I can polish and clean in my bead blaster. Since I don't plan on selling my house and I actually like the smell of mold in the morning, (if I can smell it that means that I'm still alive and it's not feeding on me yet) I have no need for it there either. Chemical stripping is the best way to go for paint removal on car bodies but you must use caution around the seams. Sandblasting, shot blasting and bead blasting is the best way to remove rust but you must use caution and treat it as soon as you are through blasting. And last but not least any experiment that involves beer and young women is worth while.

Did I miss anything?
 
#73 ·
Well,I'm not real big on blasting but if I was to do some I'd use a spot blaster with a vacuum ,the media, not sand never hits the floor it recycles it back through. Its nice but small and takes time,it works well on pitted rust.if using chem strip two to three layers of tape will keep the goo from getting into where its not supposed to.Also the little blaster wont warp anything
 
#74 ·
Yeah Chris, yo completely missed the part about borrowing a few pounds of the neighbor's pool chlorine and using that to kill the mold, wearing a suplied air mask of course.

You also missed the part about media blasting being a poor way to actually remove rust, because it peens tiny little rust seed compartments shut.
I tend to favor electrolosys (actually rust electroplating) followed by chemicle methods.

And, I think you overlooked the part about boots on -v- off, which I contend is determined solely by who pays for the sheets.
 
#75 ·
Eastwood soda blaster

I bought one from Eastwood. It works very well. The soda needs to be removed afterward or it will cake in the 25.00 worth of fittings. Its not the fittings that make it work. It is what is inside the fittings that makes it work. I'd say I am very happy with it. Dry air is a must.

My only disappointment is the cost of the soda. I have not found a good local source for it. I have bought it from Eastwood and TP, but the shipping kills me.

I'm hoping one of them will have a deal at Carlisle this spring.

On another note. I love having the soda blaster here but by the time I got done buying and shipping the soda for what I did compared to what I had done in ther past, I could have had the soda blast guy do it for about the same price and possibly cheaper.

Ben Braun
 
#76 ·
racersdad04 said:
I bought one from Eastwood. It works very well. The soda needs to be removed afterward or it will cake in the 25.00 worth of fittings. Its not the fittings that make it work. It is what is inside the fittings that makes it work. I'd say I am very happy with it. Dry air is a must.

My only disappointment is the cost of the soda. I have not found a good local source for it. I have bought it from Eastwood and TP, but the shipping kills me.

I'm hoping one of them will have a deal at Carlisle this spring.

On another note. I love having the soda blaster here but by the time I got done buying and shipping the soda for what I did compared to what I had done in ther past, I could have had the soda blast guy do it for about the same price and possibly cheaper.

Ben Braun
thats why I like the chem strip,it only cost about 50.00 and a days work
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top