<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
Probably over a buck's worth of $0.02 have been thrown in on this subject,
so I thought I'd go ahead and up it to $1.02.  In the oil and gas industry,
hydrocarbons are contained in reservoir rocks that are typically sandstones.
It is common knowledge that the coarser grained are better quality and more
desirable than the finer grained ones.  The coarser grained rocks hold more
hydrocarbon (higher porosity) and have better permeability (better flow
characteristics).  The finer grained (grit) ones have more surface area
which holds more "irreducible or bound" water against the grains (surface
tension, capillary forces, and all that jazz), thus reducing the available
area for hydrocarbons (the good stuff).

Oh OK, up I'll up it some more to $1.04.  I was wondering if there is any
reason why an additional wipe/cleaning after sanding would actually hurt a
bond, other than mitigating the "high energy" state that was mentioned in a
prior post?  Could the wipe tend to smooth or glaze the surface, thus
eliminating some of the sanding benefits?  Could it be that the "sand
followed by wipe" that resulted in a bond failure in the experiment was due
to the use of the "impure, paint thinner" type MC blend, i.e., the "sanding
after wiping" removed some undesirable residuals from the impure MC.  I'd be
very much interested in a repeat experiment using pure MC, and would do it
myself if I had some (recall, mine all evaporated in my hot garage ...).
Heck, maybe I'll try it with acetone, plus 80 vs. 40 grit ...        

Dana Westphal (360 MKII)    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML homepage:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html