Ya better read this it seems that the EPA doesn't want us to paint our projects anymore
Printable View
Ya better read this it seems that the EPA doesn't want us to paint our projects anymore
Excellent link, joined SEMA and contacted my congress critters.
That has been coming for a long time.They are afraid of the enviro. hazards and want to cut out the DIY'ers.As was mentioned,the refrigerant R-12 was phased out,almost completely,but there is still some around.Everyone in the HVAC field complained about the certification requirement so the industry made it dum-as-mud simple to pass it. The automotive paint industry is already finding alternative products to sell to the public, they couldn't survive if the only people they could sell to had to be liscensed and certified to use their products. And there would be a new market/industry created by someone to meet the demand if the Fed's. come down to hard on current products.As you already know the issocyanates and other products will become hard to buy and/or eliminated. Just a guess here,but I would suspect that eventially the industry will react to the demand ( $$$ talks ) but the best products on the market will require liscense and certification AND,,,,LOTS MORE MONEY TO BUY. But that will hurt the low cost production shops. So I wonder what the PPG's and other bigboys are planning to put out .
just a little caveat for the R12 thing... the big ban came up just as the patent came up for renual... amazing co-incidence or what? The new R-12 replacements: HOTSHOT... a mix of R12 and R22... now if R12 is bad, just how the hell can it get better with a mix of 22? Also.. refrigerant is heavier than air.. if you find someone passed out and you suspect refrigerant poisoning, you should turn him upside down so the refrigerant can drain from his lungs
( after evacuating him from the enclosed space of course)..
SO.. if the refrigerant is heavier than air, just how the hell is it being found in the upper atmosphere...
inquiring minds want to know...
Good point, NTF. SEMA fights very hard to preserve the rights of us Hot Rodders. Money to support them IMO is money well spent!!!!!
and on the R12 thing, guess who said it was bad for us, Duponts own scientist & Dupont also just happen to own the patent on R12, seems odd all of a suden it was BADDDD for us. amazing what LOBBIEST can do for u w/the correct amount of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.....joe
Just to add a small amount of balance to the discussion I'll start by saying I'm a big supporter of SEMA and it's vigilence in trying to support the hobbyist as well as the business side of the hobby. Second, I do some painting at home too so have a vested interest in continuing to have some freedom in that arena.
That being said, I read some of the commentary on the linked site and see a lot of b.s., though it's understandable coming from people who don't know what they're talking about, so only see their perception. And this isn't intended to be a criticism of them, it's to point out what issues and perceptions are involved so that if you choose to get involved you can approach it in an informed fashion which will help in fighting for a rational rather than a reactive solution.
The first thing that made me laugh was the comment that body shop owners wanted to force the hobbyist into coming to them for a paint job. Having been one of those evil conspirators I'll tell you that when I had my shop you couldn't pay me enough to paint your car complete. It was too much of a disruption of my production flow. Now, there are probably some shops out there that would think that way, but they are not the leading, or most prominent (representation wise) in the industry.
As one of those posters mentioned, it is an expensive proposition (both in time and money, which in a business is really the same thing) to be a properly maintained shop from an environmental perspective. Also, in the strictest interpretation of the current laws, the shop owner is responsible for the hazardous material from cradle to grave (I'll be keeping my documentation and shipping manifests until the day I die). In a technical sense the laws as they exist are nearly unworkable, the only thing that allows the industry to operate is that enforcement to the letter can't be done. And therein lies the rub. What happens is that enforcement is very subjective and spotty. When one shop is "disciplined" the operator expresses indignation because he knows there are hundreds (thousands?) of other shops doing the same thing and they're not being punished. It's the luck (bad) of the draw thing.
I was involved in a review of enforcement/risk policies some ten years ago and saw some interesting info. While the jobbers were very reluctant to give us exact figures, we were able to get enough info to do some extrapolations. Our best info indicated that the licensed shops were responsible for 55-60% of the refinish materials purchases in Western Washington. It may vary in other parts of the country, but it's probably reasonably representative. That means that 40-45% of the "hazardous" material is un-regulated. If you look at the individual hobbyist comments, they only see the world from their personal 1 gallon, or two quart, whatever, point of view. But from the other side, the cumulative effect is close to half the product sold is not under scrutiny. If you put yourself in the place of the guy who is saddled with a lifelong legal responsibility, and the associated costs of meeting regulations, you might say "if it's so important to control this stuff, why is only my half of the problem getting 100% of the attention/punishment potential?" Therein lies a greater reason for the shops to push their agenda, rather than the quirky notion they want to force all the hobbyists to their door.
If push comes to shove, I would prefer to see some kind of program that puts some responsibility on the hobbyist to demonstrate that they aren't being gross polutors (again keep in mind that you may think you're only pouring a quart of solvent down the hole, but if all hobbyists do it, it's a big cumulative thing). Maybe a reasonable compromise is for the hobbyist to pass some sort of knowledge test to get a "minimal" use catagory license and be required to return a realistic amount of waste material to the same jobber they bought the original refinish material from to demonstrate they aren't generating the amount of polutants the politicians and environmental whackos think.
My concern in this is we lose reasonable freedom to misinformation and resultant misapplication of regulation. Just to give you an example from a volatile political issue in another venue. Something near 500 toddlers die per year by drowning in a few inches of water left in unattended 5 gallon plastic pails. Less than twenty children a year are killed by accidental discharge of firearms. Which one of those two gets the most focus? Rational or reactive?
Hi Bob,
Good perspective, good analogies. And perhaps that is the answer - some basic demonstration of knowledge, and a means of disposing of excess/waste materials. Sounds a lot like my taking my drain oils to NAPA for recycling - they won't take a drum of it, but will take a "hobbyist" type quantity.
Thanks for the insight. And you're right about the shops not wanting to do total repaints, and especially color changes. A friend with a shop made exactly your point, plus a little. In addition to interrupting the production flow, he likes insurance work because he knows he'll get paid, the jobs are manageable, and the checks clear.
guess I'll have to at least buy my paint 2007, car should be done by then. . could always buy your paint from a body shop that will sell you the paint under the counter, or a paint store that will sell stuff under the counter.
It also seems that there is no link, or quotes or anything from the EPA leaving that thread on moparts a possible gossip thread, also being that the thread starter has 468 posts and registered oct '03, might not be the most reliable source.
Just one group of tree huggers crying about body shops and wanting restrictions. Not even close to being a law. So, how many "paint police" would it take from stopping Joe Blow from painting his own car. Not saying it could never happen, just that it would be unlikely. I guess I wouldn't have a problem about having to pass a test of some sort before I was allowed to buy the products. People working with pesticides and fertilizers have had to do it for a number of years now.
Just another case of Professional Do Gooders getting involved with an issue they know absolutely nothing about,. These types need to get a life, and quit interferring with everyone else's !!!!!
Quote:
Originally posted by Matt167
It also seems that there is no link, or quotes or anything from the EPA leaving that thread on moparts a possible gossip thread, also being that the thread starter has 468 posts and registered oct '03, might not be the most reliable source.
at the bottom of the 1st post was this link that had the info on it
http://www.abrn.com/abrn/article/art....jsp?id=196423
That's not the only thing... 06 starts the new chopper law by EPA and Harley Davidson... It's true too not just some rumor. The chopper one is that you can only own one custom in your lifetime and cant sell it until you have owned it for over 5 years. Harley Davidson is helping EPA with it and sponsoring it. I lost all respect for HD now because of it and so has a lot of others. Not a lot of people know about it but go to ANY chopper forum and look at the EPA links...
Pretty soon they will ban hot rods and we will have to run new motors and everything. I wouldn't doubt that in 10 years they start doing the same thing they are doing with custom choppers to hot rods.
Just some rambling comments. As to Bob's data on only 50% of paint use by licensed shops, I find it hard to believe that over 40% of the rest of the market is due to DIY types. Maybe DIY is 5% but maybe the rest is use by shops that do some painting but are not high volume body shops? Then there are moon-light painters who have a garage somewhere and paint on the side but they are body specialists during the day? If that is so the new regulations will effect them more than the DIY folks. Yes indeed SEMA needs to counter balance the EPA folks but as for the R12 situation it has to do with whether the chlorocarbon bond breaks off a -Cl easily to form the Cl-O molecule; that is what damages the ozone layer. So it is possible to still use other refrigerants based on whether they release Cl less easily into the atmosphere. The purpose of changing the refrigerant is to reduce the amount of Cl-O formed, so there are other compounds that can be used as refrigerants with less production of Cl-O. The paint restriction will not effect me since I am learning that there is no hope that I can do my own paint job so I am at the mercy of the local shops.
Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder
Ok , Suppose this things does come to pass. What does one have to do to be legit. Could it be as simple as a test as Dave pointed out ( hopefully) ? If so
What then , would the EPA then show up at your door to see if your shop is compliant ? What all is involved in being compliant ? Thanks Darin
Uncle Bob did a post awhile back on what it takes for compliance, scary list of things to be done!!!!!!
Thanks , I will search for it. Darin
FMX,Quote:
Originally posted by FMXhellraiser
That's not the only thing... 06 starts the new chopper law by EPA and Harley Davidson... It's true too not just some rumor. The chopper one is that you can only own one custom in your lifetime and cant sell it until you have owned it for over 5 years. Harley Davidson is helping EPA with it and sponsoring it. I lost all respect for HD now because of it and so has a lot of others. Not a lot of people know about it but go to ANY chopper forum and look at the EPA links...
Pretty soon they will ban hot rods and we will have to run new motors and everything. I wouldn't doubt that in 10 years they start doing the same thing they are doing with custom choppers to hot rods.
Where's the supporting info on this?
Don, has it been proven conclusively that "CFC's" are the cause of the ozone layer depletion or still in the "theory" stage?Quote:
Originally posted by Don Shillady
Yes indeed SEMA needs to counter balance the EPA folks but as for the R12 situation it has to do with whether the chlorocarbon bond breaks off a -Cl easily to form the Cl-O molecule; that is what damages the ozone layer. So it is possible to still use other refrigerants based on whether they release Cl less easily into the atmosphere. The purpose of changing the refrigerant is to reduce the amount of Cl-O formed, so there are other compounds that can be used as refrigerants with less production of Cl-O.
Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder [/B]
Henry, look on www.clubchopper.comQuote:
Originally posted by Henry Rifle
FMX,
Where's the supporting info on this?
They have a few threads on it. They have sites to sites about it, etc to show that it's true. I think it takes place in 06 or 07. I am almost positive 06. At first it was going to be 06 they will start this for just California and the other high emmisions states and then in 2010 they will do it to every state but now I think it's going to take place for every state. There's way to get around it. Find a old HD, chop the heck out of the frame and everything and you still have the VIN or numbers on the neck and there ya go, it's not a custom. Then again you can buy more than one bike and have it in your moms name, then your dads, then your brother, your sister, your other brother, your grandma...... yeah you get the point. :LOL:
NTFDAY, To the best of my understanding there are two main arguments for the chlorocarbon effect on the ozone level. First the ozone level has recovered somewhat since the outlawing of R12 and second the ClO molecule (actually a free-radical species) has been identified by NASA about 5 years ago. The very sneaky thing about ClO is that it apparently has a very weak bond and only has one bound vibrational state so that if you try to shine an IR beam on it to identify it by infrared spectroscopy the energy breaks it apart, but I worked with one of the folks who characterized it using high level theoretical calculations (Dr. Don Philips, NASA-LRC) to prove it's existance. Of course when the atmosphere is modeled to study the ozone concentrations well over 100 molecular species are included in a model which requires the fastest available computers to simultaneously equilibrate all the species involved (including ClO). For the folks on this Forum it may be of interest that combustion can also be modeled in a similar way but even when a simple flame of just CH4 (methane) and O2 are modeled in a simple cyindrical pipe flame (cf. Prof. Rich Smook at Yale Chem. Engr. Dept.) it takes about 140 simultaneous reactions to get agreement with experimental measurements. Believe me there are very complete models of the atmosphere to understand the role of ozone but the problem is that when Cl atoms enter the atmosphere they can react with ozone to convert it to O2 over and over many times. I do not know the actual turn-over number for how many molecules of ozone can be destroyed by one Cl atom but it is many thousand at least so a little bit of Cl can do a lot damage to the ozone. For those of you who are skeptics there is complicating data which shows that even though there are more industrial sources of Cl in the Northern Hemisphere over the U.S., Europe, Russia and China, the ozone depletion is actually much greater in the Southern Hemisphere! Why?? It can't be due to Australia and Brazil?? Anyway, for me the main proof is that after R12 was outlawed the ozone concentrations did come back. Then again the "natural" emission of HCl and SO2 from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philipines (Southern Hemisphere) also contributed to ozone depletion in the Southern Hemisphere. Maybe if Mount St. Helens blows it's stack again we may see an effect on the ozone levels at the North Pole? While it does seem that humans have effected the atmosphere somewhat, a few volcanic eruptions here and there still have a major effect.
Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder
DennyW, thanks for the good link, I have bookmarked that site in case I ever teach that course again. I have always presented the case of the previous warming that suckered the Vikings into building on Greenland around 1300 and then they got frozen out. The problems of ozone depletion and global warming are somewhat different although both atmospheric in nature. Again I believe we ARE in a period of warming but the CAUSE is the question and the site you gave has a good long range view of climate cycles. Another interesting problem is that some folks in the oceaography community believe that if wind storms blow a lot of iron-containing sand from the Arabian peninsula into the western Pacific the zooplankton will fluorish so much that they will use up enough CO2 to bring on the next ice age sooner. This is based on readily demonstrated experiments in seawater where it can be shown that the zooplankton need iron and when then get it they grow very rapidly and then use up a lot of the CO2. You would think there are enough sunken iron ships to keep this going but the oceans are so vast that it would take thousands of shiploads of pure iron filings or iron sulfate to change the iron concentration of the ocean by even 1 part per million. But back to the paint question where the problem has to do with VOCs (volatile organic chemicals) in the residential environment where the "canary in the mine" indicator is the population with latent athsma conditions. Another interesting idea is to look back in history books to around 1895 for comments about the air quality in big cities like New York and Philadelphia. I came across one discussion that said any home or store at street level in New York was subject to a layer of finely powdered horse manure due to so many horse drawn vehicles in the street. Folks worried about auto emissions now ought to compare them to powdered horse manure! Anyway, stink is stink but we should have an open mind about the causes and the alternatives (want to depend on a horse for transportation, buy hay, shovel a stall and brush it down instead of washing your car?). Unfortunately it is true that scientists are human and are willing to hype their research to gain fame and funding in the situation where "publish or perish" is real and funding is necessary for promotion. Anyway back to paint, as the population density increases it seems to me that there will indeed be more restrictions on using volatile solvents for painting automobiles and restrictions have already wiped out the use of nitrocellulose lacquer which was easy to use even out doors in a dusty driveway provided you were willing to rub it out and apply lots of coats. I had a neighbor who did a nice job on an MG-TC roadster spraying it tan with chocolate fenders outside using lacquer and he just rubbed it out and resprayed imperfections and it turned out great! Well anyway NTFDAY pressed my button and got me started, overall I try to be open minded and take a middle-of the road atitude toward these environmental questions but they do require some thinking. In addition I am bracing for the $1500 bill for a "standard" modern paint job; I favor Saturn Cranberry or '47 Ford Pheasant Red close to the picture you previously did for me on a '29 fendered roadster. However it does not seem that you can even get the paint under $200 a gallon (more likely $250).
Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder
Don,
As was posted earlier, it does seem rather coincidental that the ban on R-12, and most everything else that contained CFC's, came about with the theory that they were depleting the ozone layer.
I have great respect for the scientific community, but am not to keen on "theory". Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't E=M2' still nothing more than a theory? Granted, it was proposed by probably one of the finest minds to ever populate the scientific community, but I believe it is still nothing more than a theory.
It's my humble opinion that the scientific community, as others, have those that have to justify their exsistence and unproven theory is but one means to that end.
As you are aware, releasing CFC's to the atmosphere can result in very heavy fines and possibly jail time if the transgression is brought to the attention of the EPA. That being said, why was R-12, for all practical purposes, banned? Could there be collusion here? IMHO, this is tantamount to swatting a fly with a sledge hammer.
Global warming/cooling is in the hands of Mother Nature and all the scare tactics in the world will not change that fact.
just read it, probably part of it is true, some of it could have been twisted by the author to sound the way he wanted it to. it reads, introduced 2007- fully effective by 2011, so for 5 years, it will lay dormant, maby forgotten about.Quote:
Originally posted by TooMany2count
at the bottom of the 1st post was this link that had the info on it
http://www.abrn.com/abrn/article/art....jsp?id=196423
It's only another tree hugger proposal, not even close to being a law yet.
would seem that way, even if it became a law/ regulation, there is ways around it as you said.Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Severson
It's only another tree hugger proposal, not even close to being a law yet.
Always way's around things like this...
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/...ay-15/a006.pdf
There ya go Henry and the others. There is one thing about that bike law comming. I know it's not PAINT or HOT ROD related but just goes to show you how hard EPA is comming down on hot rodders and bikers. Pretty soon they will only be allowed in museums unless you have some hot rod that runs on water and tree huggers wont be afriad to stick their mouth on the end of your tailpipe without crying.... or dying.
Read through it a bit, this effects production motorcycles built after March 15, 2004. Doubt it has much effect on an old shovelhead chopper. The snowmobilers, dirt bikers, and ATV's survived the reg just fine. Matter of fact power is up on this years crop of dirt bikes and snowmobiles.......
Dave, I am talking about building a bike now. All those custom bike builders will not have as much business, people can't build another bike, etc.... I understand that you can get an old bike or 04 bike and be fine but I mean now in 05 or 06...
NTFDAY, I don't want to be controversial and I agree healthy skepticism is a virture, BUT E=mc^2 is behind atomic weapons and enters in to the wave mechanics used to design solid state electronics. If you mean the current theories are not absolute without need for further refinement, then I agree quantum mechanics and relativity are just theories and in fact there are some far out folks still trying (and making some progress) at coming up with a "Unified Field Theory" or a "Theory of Everything". In that sense an overall theory is still under development, BUT as far as working equations used to design modern electronic devices and astrophysical calculations of objects in space the "Special" form of relativity has been proven recently with satellite experiments and the original "proof" by A. Einstein had to do with the reflected light from the planet Mercury being bent by the gravity of the Sun and that pretty well accounts for the false position of the image of the planet relative to classical orbital calculatons. I have made my career on applying quantum mechanics to molecules and I admit it gets so complicated that it is often tricky to interpret, but based on my professional judgement the "Toronto" ban (pre-Kyoto) on R12 has had a positive effect on the ozone levels, but as I said before in another posting, volcanic eruptions may still have a greater effect on the ozone levels and as far as global warming goes, I do think we are in a warming cycle but I previously noted there was a similar cycle around 1300 A.D. during which the Vikings colonized Greenland only to be frozen out about 100 years later and that was when the human population was much lower and there were no internal combustion engines. Yes the planet Earth is one big Mutha-Earth and humankind is only one factor in the geoclimate effects, but in the case of the R12 debate I think that was a step in a positive direction, although Mt. St. Helens could easily have a greater effect. In my own career I tried to use the best available computer models of molecular behavior but I was always cautious when others would claim "truth" since it is all too apparent that with a computer you can easily make mistakes, so I would just do my best for the best answer and try to bracket the results relative to real world data. Still in the case of R12 I think banning it has helped reduce ozone depletion, at least until the next volcanic eruption. In the case of the internal combustion engine it is clearly better and cheaper to put an engine on a dyno and find out what it really does than to use a computer model, BUT that is only because the present computers are too small and too slow. My professional attitude (not appreciated by my previous administrators) was/is that if you would only let me use the biggest, fastest computer (IBM Deep Blue) the equations could be used to theoretically characterize even combustion and in fact the AFOSR does some of that for jet engines as well as by NASA researchers. My position is that the theory is in pretty good shape (since about 1930!) and the problem is that even the best computers of today are not big enough, fast enough to fully apply known theory, BUT, even so I know that modern solid state physics can be used to make outright design of new electronic devices and orbital anlysis in astrophysics can be done on modern computers that accurately make use of special relativity, AND if it were not for E=mc^2 atomic bombs would just be heavy objects! Anyway for hotrodders who want to go faster and faster, that mentality is evident in computer design, but thwarted by administrators who often have degrees in other fields like Social Science or Business Administration who only see the expense of modern computing and so theory largely waits for either clever pencil and paper solutions to equations or application of ever better computers. While we are on the topic of VOCs from paint, anybody out there have a good suggestion for an inexpensive single stage maroon?
Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder
Wow.... Don you are a smart cookie. That's all I gotta say. I forgot what your job is again (someone told me before) but geeze, you know all this stuff that I have no clue about. Looks like you paid attention in school and took a million science classes unlike me. haha Interesting information though.
FMX thanks, but I am slowing down at my age now. Actually the reason I am still fascinated by engines is that I always want to know how things work and that led me to take more science courses. My specialty became what is called Chemical-Physics. I recently attended my 50th High School Reunion and that really makes me feel old (I am!) but I still recall having a copy of Hot Rod inside my English book; that was when flatheads were the king of the road but right at the point of the '55 SBC 265 and that really was a revolution. We were used to Oldsmobiles and even Hudsons as threats to acceleration on the streets, but the '55 SBC 265 came out of nowhere and we really could not believe that "Chevys" could be that quick! Still a '54 Merc was a good ride in '55 but the writing was on the wall that OHV-V8s were much better than flatheads and then (!) the Ford Y-block was a step in the right direction (the '57 Y-block was pretty good) but by the early '60s the Ford 221 led to the 289 and they had the dreaded long water pump so that was when the SBC really became dominant. Well that's history now.
DennyW, thanks I knew about that site and have it bookmarked. I really like acrylic one-stage but these colors are a bit wild. The "burgundy metallic" is closest to what I want but it does look a bit much on the pink side of the color chart. Actually I would not mind having a purple-pink car but I will have to check with my wife. If she would allow I might go with that wild Burgundy-metallic. I like gaudy stuff but she is more conservative in her tastes and I have to respect her wishes, at least the stuff she knows about, but it would be pretty hard for her to not notice the color of the car! (Ha!) Has anyone used this cheap acrylic paint? Is it OK or another case of "you only get what you pay for"? Maybe since the paint is so cheap it might be worth adding a bit of black to darken it up some? I recall when the '40 Ford Mandarin Maroon was considered a "color" but it might as well be black because it was so dark. Here is a link to some cars with this Rayflex paint including one Jag painted with the Burgundy Metallic, not bad!
http://www.paintforcars.com/Merchant...r_testimonials
Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder
Heh that sounds like a long time ago. I wish I were born back then to experience that kind of stuff. Also on the color, your wife may be right. I was taught that girls or women have an eye for color and they can tell what color is better or worse... Something to do with how their brain and eyes work, I don't know. They say that paint companies like PPG that mix paints, etc would rather have a women work for them than a guy because of that.
Don,
You discovered the paragraph! :LOL:
This is a great thread, all good comments. But maybe I'm a little to bitter at over regulating stiff collars and greedy big business snobs because I seriously think that liscensing and certification is on the way. Then as most of you know there will be continuing education requirements to keep the liscense with riseing costs to that and every part of the industry. Result ? Many guys that do the work to just cover a few bills will say, " to expensive to fool with it ". And there are those in the industry that will love that. Who ? The struggling small shop thats just keeping its head above water because of the moonlighters that are taking their business. I've nothing against liscensing and certification. I've nothing against enviromental concerns. What I don't like is the greed that pushes these regulations because they are ' self-interest ' snobs that don't give a damn about the American way of life and your freedoms. Sorry if you don't like this but it smacks of communism I think!
FMX, you are correct. Deficient color vision is a related to male genes but women almost never have deficient color vision. Males (20% of the population??) can have varying degrees of deficiency in color vision and tests are available to determine the degree.
Henry/Jack, should I indent? It's not easy to defend Relativity AND Quantum Mechanics in a few sentences, I think you know what I mean!
DennyW, thanks for the Kirken links that is another source. Today I got my local paint shop to look at the Trinity-Rayflex site. Most of the nice GM two-stage colors like Saturn Cranberry-met are in the $280/gallon price range. Frankly I do not plan to do my own painting but maybe I can get a high gloss acrylic one-stage and save a little. The Burgundy MEtallic looks good to me but as you say even on the several sites it looks different on my screen. Still some sort of "plum-metallic" is what I am after. The time is near since I realize I have to get the firewall painted before I put on the body and so I may have to paint the body before the fender-floor. Thanks.
Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder
Don, I was not trying to be controversial, just merely stating an opinion. I have a reluctance to accept on face value those things which are not proven, just merely a theory.
I was fortunate to be on the team which applied electical power to the first DC-10, working closely with the engineers who desiged the system around Westinghouse's control boxes. Many of their theories were proven to be wrong and they were corrected on the go. These men were probably some of the finest Aviation Electrical Engineers of their time, but the system was far from flawless.
NTFDAY, no problem. As I said skepticism is healthy related to theory, but there is theory and then practitioners which may be different. The neat thing about computers is that you can test things. I used to require my students to check the computer output with a hand calculator and one of my best students told me there was something wrong in the 11th place of the computer output but we found his calculator was only a 10 digit calculator! How about those several failed Mars probes which crashed because engineers mixed up the units between metric and SAE! Again I recall discussions with NASA engineers who programmed satellites and once programs are burned in to ROM they better be EXACTLY correct because if just one symbol is wrong in the program the whole thing may malfunction. So what you say is correct in that the engineers have to be as exacting as the hardware to live up to the theory and that is not easy for analog humans. My point is that the level of theory is pretty good as far as accuracy (there is still a gap between quantum mechanics and gravitational theory) but THE HUMANS and COMPUTERS have to apply the theory correctly! There was an old story at the NASA-LRC wind tunnel that some Boeing engineers tested wing contours extensively and failed to meet their specs until an operator of the wind tunnel showed them how to doctor up the shape of the wing with a rubber mallet, but that may be just folklore. Still it means that there is always a conflict between new ideas and the broad experience of so-called "common sense"; I say compute it AND then test it (which is what is usually done these days)!
Then there is the problem of the generation gaps as when NASA goes through the whole Gemeni Program and the engineers and equipment get old, then a whole new crew has to start the next project with new equipment! This means there is an important link at the educational level which has to be done right or the next group has to reinvent the wheel all over again. To keep the discussion relative to automobiles on this Forum, I like the fact that Ford at least has a family member in the loop who knows and remembers the history of the company and with the recent problems GM is having, Ford may outlast GM?
Back to DIY painting. I realize I don't have the practice or skill to paint my car myself and although Brian did a great job on his yellow pickup he mentioned that he had done many previous paint jobs. The last time I did a home paint job in 1954 I spent about two weeks of afternoon sanding and leading in holes (with a BIG soldering iron, you may recall the Barris fad of "dechroming") and then got the paint job done by a moonlighting bodyshop man for $100 + about $30 for paint. I think the latest trend will mean that DIY/moonlight paint jobs will be less probable BUT my local shop charges $38/hour for the prep work so the next pattern may be for the DIY/hotrodder to do all the prep work and sanding and then let a shop do the painting in some "approved" paint booth. The more I think about the price and gloss of the Trinity-Rayflex acrylic the more I think I will go that way; they sure seem to have the outrageous colors that rodders like!
Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder