| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| nitro - poliurethan http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=24929 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | fric [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | nitro - poliurethan |
hi, except last two , all guitar I made was finished with shelac (FP). The last two I finish spraying with poliurethan. First day 6 thin coats (two on top) . 15min pause betwen coat after 24h 600-sanding and another 6 and two coat 5 day cure and 800, 1200, 2000 water sanding and polishing with 3M and the result is nice glossy finish how I can see You mostly use nitro for finish and I’m curious what is advantage of nitro finish or why nitro not poliurethane? regards Fric |
|
| Author: | bluescreek [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: nitro - poliurethan |
Nitro Lacquer has a "backdoor" that means it is repairable . Poly doesn't have that . Nitro and shellac have been used many years on guitars. The health concerns of nitro do make it something that you need to be aware of and take proper precautions. Lacquer also has a small acoustic footprint. |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: nitro - poliurethan |
While you were able to work the polyurethane after 5 days, unless it was Catalyzed polyurethane I really doubt it has completely gassed off and shrunk back completely yet. |
|
| Author: | Ken Franklin [ Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: nitro - poliurethan |
Any finish properly applied in the .003 to .005 inch range will give good results acoustically. So you have to weigh the other advantages and disadvantages and decide what is most important to you. Nitro Pro- buffs beautifully, repairable, forgiving to poor application thickness, ages nicely, a look that's accepted by most consumers Con-long outgassing odor, long wait time before buffing, allergic reactions for some builders, reacts to body chemistry of some players, not as durable as some finishes, can craze, cost of application and buffing equipment French Polish Pro- beautiful sheen, easy to repair, low cost, no expensive equipment, forgiving to poor application thickness, ages beautifully, not acceptable to many consumers Con- not very durable, reacts to body chemistry of some players, not as shiny, more skill required for application, shrinks into pores over time Tru-oil Pro- steel wool buffs to a natural sheen, easy to repair, low cost, no expensive equipment, hard to get it too thick, ages beautifully, not acceptable to many consumers Con-not very durable, not as shiny, difficulty curing over some woods and pore fillers, long wait time if buffing, sands through easily, need a seal coat for even appearance on softwoods, not a look that most consumers want, not clear Water Based Finish Pro- no expensive equipment, soap and water cleanup, no explosive fumes, shorter outgassing Con- not very durable, harder to repair, can show witness lines, long wait time before buffing, lower sheen, can give a blue cast to dark woods, not acoustically forgiving to thick application, high cost of buffing equipment Short Oil Varnish Pro- no expensive equipment, aged look, ages nicely, low cost material Con-not acoustically forgiving to thick application, not as durable as some, harder to buff, easier to sand through, can show witness lines, longer drying time, longer curing time, lower sheen, harder to repair, long outgassing, high cost of buffing epuipment Catalyzed Urethane Pro-fast dry, fast cure, acceptable look for most consumers, resists chemicals and body chemistry, easy for consumer to maintain, water clear, short outgassing period Con-harder to buff, expensive material and spray/buffing equipment, not acoustically forgiving to poor application thickness, highly toxic fumes, can shrink into some pore fills Polyester Pro-fast dry, fast cure, acceptable look for most consumers, resists chemicals and body chemistry, easy for consumer to maintain, water clear, short outgassing period, no shrinkage, some can be both pore filler and finish in one, can be UV cured Con-harder to buff, expensive material and spray/buffing equipment, not acoustically forgiving to poor application thickness, highly toxic fumes Hope this helps. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|