Jump to content

What Happened?


Recommended Posts

I'm using brush-on lacquer on my neck this time around. After I put on the last coat of the day last night, I THOUGHT I cleaned the brush. What I actually did was leave it in the mineral spirits all night. This morning, the brush was all clumped up like the lacquer had dried in it.

What the heck happened? I thought mineral spirits was the solvent for lacquer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Acetone is only one of the components in nitrocellulose lacquer thinner (the most commonly available from hardware stores and home centers). Acetone is less hazardous (well, slightly, anyway), and when you look at the formulary for nitro lacquer thinner, you'll understand why, s the other components are much more volatile, carcinogenic, and flammable:

Methanol

Acetone 000067-64-1

Isobutyl isobuyrate

Methyl cyclohexane

Toluene 000108-88-3

Cyclohexane 000110-82-7

Heptane 000142-82-5

I had a case of heptane liquid that I used for octane booster on an old V8 Maserati. It was a cardboard box with egg-crate separators, containing 48-8 ounce bottles of the stuff. The case was one year old and sealed and taped shut. The bottles were brown glass with bakelite caps. Each bottle's closure was taped with electrical tape around the joint for additional sealing.

When I cut open the case and lifted the first bottle out to use it, I noticed it was only 2/3 full. I untaped it and unscrewed the closure, and went to get a funnel to pour it into a can filled with gas.

When I got back about 2 minutes later, there was nothing in the bottle. THAT'S volatile!

If you leave a can of nitro lacquer thinner open until it's mostly evaporated, you'll have acetone and toluene left, with only the merest traces of the other components. Toss it.

There's also acrylic lacquer thinner, which is an entirely different formula, and which is not compatible with nitro. It's usually only available from pro body shop vendors. There are also universal thinners, which are used to clean spray guns.You can use these in nitro, but they will blush on any but the hottest and driest days.

You can purchase a lacquer retarder (which you should use on cold and/or damp days to prevent blush, especially with brushed lacquers) at a pro paint supplier. Use it sparingly.

Mineral spirits is not compatible with lacquer. Its formulary is:

Naphtha 8030-30-6

Ligroine 8032-32-4

Stoddard solvent 8052-41-3

Heavy hydrotreated petroleum naphtha 64742-48-9

Medium aliphatic solvent petroleum naphtha 64742-88-7

Ligroine is a very flammable and volatile solvent, used here in small amounts. Stoddard solvent is generically known as "white gas". Naphtha is also known as lighter fluid.

You can see that lacquer thinner and mineral spirits have nothing in common, at least for our purposes.

Incidentally, did I mention that nitrocellulose is vastly overrated as a guitar finish; in terms of toxicity vs. durability, it is 50 years behind the times. Guitar manufacturers push it because we respond to nostalgia. Du Pont (supplier of nitro for Fender's first custom colors) replaced it with acrylic lacquer in...1959! Do-It-Yourself guitar people use it because it's available (from people like ReRanch) and easy to spray from spray cans.

Spray cans, although they are easy to use to paint stuff once you get the hang of it, are the most toxic, wasteful, and environmentally-unsound way to spray paint. Landfills are full of these things, and each one is a bomb unless the pressure is relieved by puncturing (which my hazardous waste contractor does for me, thankfully). Once punctured, they must be sealed in a drum for disposal. In the last four years, I have virtually eliminated the use of spray cans in the university shop that I run, with savings of a couple of thousand dollars a year in waste disposal fees, not to mention the positive environmental impact.

Edited by some guy in california
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, did I mention that nitrocellulose is vastly overrated as a guitar finish; in terms of toxicity vs. durability, it is 50 years behind the times.

Yes, but it looks great (if you like the look of a beat-up, yellowed, nitro-finished guitar, that is--and I do).

Good point about the spray can issue though. I'm looking into picking up a sprayer system (even though I only finish one or two guitars per year at most).

Unless you can get equivalent results brushing it on? (seems hard to believe)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Acetone is only one of the components in nitrocellulose lacquer thinner (the most commonly available from hardware stores and home centers). Acetone is less hazardous (well, slightly, anyway), and when you look at the formulary for nitro lacquer thinner, you'll understand why, s the other components are much more volatile, carcinogenic, and flammable:

Methanol

Acetone 000067-64-1

Isobutyl isobuyrate

Methyl cyclohexane

Toluene 000108-88-3

Cyclohexane 000110-82-7

Heptane 000142-82-5

I had a case of heptane liquid that I used for octane booster on an old V8 Maserati. It was a cardboard box with egg-crate separators, containing 48-8 ounce bottles of the stuff. The case was one year old and sealed and taped shut. The bottles were brown glass with bakelite caps. Each bottle's closure was taped with electrical tape around the joint for additional sealing.

When I cut open the case and lifted the first bottle out to use it, I noticed it was only 2/3 full. I untaped it and unscrewed the closure, and went to get a funnel to pour it into a can filled with gas.

When I got back about 2 minutes later, there was nothing in the bottle. THAT'S volatile!

If you leave a can of nitro lacquer thinner open until it's mostly evaporated, you'll have acetone and toluene left, with only the merest traces of the other components. Toss it.

There's also acrylic lacquer thinner, which is an entirely different formula, and which is not compatible with nitro. It's usually only available from pro body shop vendors. There are also universal thinners, which are used to clean spray guns.You can use these in nitro, but they will blush on any but the hottest and driest days.

You can purchase a lacquer retarder (which you should use on cold and/or damp days to prevent blush, especially with brushed lacquers) at a pro paint supplier. Use it sparingly.

Mineral spirits is not compatible with lacquer. Its formulary is:

Naphtha 8030-30-6

Ligroine 8032-32-4

Stoddard solvent 8052-41-3

Heavy hydrotreated petroleum naphtha 64742-48-9

Medium aliphatic solvent petroleum naphtha 64742-88-7

Ligroine is a very flammable and volatile solvent, used here in small amounts. Stoddard solvent is generically known as "white gas". Naphtha is also known as lighter fluid.

You can see that lacquer thinner and mineral spirits have nothing in common, at least for our purposes.

Incidentally, did I mention that nitrocellulose is vastly overrated as a guitar finish; in terms of toxicity vs. durability, it is 50 years behind the times. Guitar manufacturers push it because we respond to nostalgia. Du Pont (supplier of nitro for Fender's first custom colors) replaced it with acrylic lacquer in...1959! Do-It-Yourself guitar people use it because it's available (from people like ReRanch) and easy to spray from spray cans.

Spray cans, although they are easy to use to paint stuff once you get the hang of it, are the most toxic, wasteful, and environmentally-unsound way to spray paint. Landfills are full of these things, and each one is a bomb unless the pressure is relieved by puncturing (which my hazardous waste contractor does for me, thankfully). Once punctured, they must be sealed in a drum for disposal. In the last four years, I have virtually eliminated the use of spray cans in the university shop that I run, with savings of a couple of thousand dollars a year in waste disposal fees, not to mention the positive environmental impact.

Sir, I tip my hat to you. Some of the crap I deal with on a day to day basis is ridiculous, yet it still doesn't quite come as close as to the stuff we take for granted as readily-available products on a day to day basis.

(CAD tech at UK-based environmental consultancy)

Edited by Prostheta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you can get equivalent results brushing it on? (seems hard to believe)

I once knew a guy who could get gorgeous finishes on motorcycle parts by brushing on gloss enamel. He would let the stuff settle in the can, drain the oils off the top, and then heat the can in a double-boiler to about 150°F. He would use a very soft and wide natural-hair brush. The enamel would flow out and the finish was unbelievable...

I don't recommend it for several reasons, the first of which is--it's enamel. Then there's the hazard of heating flammables.

And, no, although it can be done with brushing lacquers (I'm told..), I've only seen it on lacquerware done the old way, not on any guitars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you can get equivalent results brushing it on? (seems hard to believe)

We'll find out next weekend when I buff out the neck!

some guy in california: Uh... thanks, I guess. I asked "Why isn't mineral spirits cleaning the lacquer". Someone already said "Cuz you need lacquer thinner". There's a principle at work here: the simplest answer is usually the best one.

I'm glad Prostheta liked your chemical breakdown, but it was completely un-necessary and will be lost on the vast majority of the members of this board. I'll say this though: I DO appreciate your thorough understanding of the issue as well as your desire to convey said information. You know a helluva lot more about chemistry than I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you can get equivalent results brushing it on? (seems hard to believe)

We'll find out next weekend when I buff out the neck!

some guy in california: Uh... thanks, I guess. I asked "Why isn't mineral spirits cleaning the lacquer". Someone already said "Cuz you need lacquer thinner". There's a principle at work here: the simplest answer is usually the best one.

I'm glad Prostheta liked your chemical breakdown, but it was completely un-necessary and will be lost on the vast majority of the members of this board. I'll say this though: I DO appreciate your thorough understanding of the issue as well as your desire to convey said information. You know a helluva lot more about chemistry than I do.

OK, "avenger", I usually consider information--and correct, detailed information--to be the equivalent of light in a dark room. I guess you prefer the dark.

I'm a college administrator (department manager) and teacher; it's my nature to inform. Four years ago I took charge of my department, reorganized it, rewrote the syllabi, and built a complete program and wood, metal, machine, plastics, and paint shops, virtually from scratch, based upon 35 years of experience in industry building working prototypes of all sorts of complex items from medical devices to prototype show cars. It is now one of the highest-rated programs in the USA.

One thing that I have constantly dealt for the last 25 years or so is the anti-intellectual mood in this country...a fear of knowledge, as if it could somehow burn or destroy us. To find this in a guitar forum is not a surprise but certainly a disappointment.

Thanks for the welcome. It's been short but informative. Over and out.

Edited by some guy in california
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm guessing that you completely missed this part:

I DO appreciate your thorough understanding of the issue as well as your desire to convey said information. You know a helluva lot more about chemistry than I do.

I don't have a fear of knowledge. I don't have an anti-intellectual outlook on anything. I don't prefer the dark. It's extremely presumptuous of you to assume so.

I don't know chemistry. I don't care to know chemistry. I don't care to learn about a great number of things. That does not equate to a lack of care for education or in the benefits of both learning and expanding one's personal knowledge. It simply means that I don't have a desire to learn about those areas. Not caring to learn about a certain topic does not make one anti-intellectual, it makes one indifferent to the topic.

To use an analogy: I asked what time it was, you told me how to make a watch, how this watch differs from that watch, and how to make the other watch. I just wanted to know what time it was.

What you apparently fail to understand is how to structure your explanation for your audience. To over simplify and stereotype, we're mostly amateur luthiers, with a few professionals mixed in. We're not chemists, we're not structural engineers, we're not nuclear technicians. We're (mostly) hobbyist luthiers and woodworkers. Your over detailed explanation is simply not suited for the majority of the members of this board, myself included. It's not for a lack of desire to learn, it's for a lack of interest in the field.

I find your entire your to be very condescending and boastful. What you appear to be suggesting is that your (supposed) experience in your (supposed) department restructuring places you in a position far and above we mere mortals. It is merely bragging and boasting in an attempt to gain some credibility and place yourself in a position over us.

You also seem to have come in expecting to find a certain attitude. You then, perhaps sub-consciously, went about creating a situation conducive to the fostering of said attitude. That then gave you the opportunity to talk down to the one displaying the very attitude you went looking for. Sir, if you look for something hard enough, you'll find it, even if you have to put it there yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that I have constantly dealt for the last 25 years or so is the anti-intellectual mood in this country...a fear of knowledge, as if it could somehow burn or destroy us. To find this in a guitar forum is not a surprise but certainly a disappointment.

That's because us intellectual types need to show the rest of America that being smart is manly --it's the cult of idiocy that's driving the States into the ground. And we are going down in a major way. I'll never understand how being smart became associated with being wimpy. I kick ass every which way you turn. I am indeed a Muscle Poet. :D

I appreciate knowing more about the chemicals in these products. I find finishing to be the most difficult step in building, and I have definitely found that the more I understand the product, the better my results.

But if you're going to post in an internet forum, you'll need a thicker skin than that -- part of the charm is that people come from all directions, so they're not always going to agree with you, and not always be polite about it either. Just brush it off, stay true to who you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that was fun. :D

Back on topic, this is one to file away: always use the correct solvents for the materials you're working with.

It's always safer to stay within one family of brands for color, clear, thinner/reducer, retarder, etc., since these products are made to work together. When it's not possible, a little research goes a long way. Read labeling and MSDS for every chemical you use, and keep those MSDS on file for future reference. Important stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on topic, this is one to file away: always use the correct solvents for the materials you're working with.

Yep. That was my mistake: I thought mineral spirits was the solvent for lacquer, and I was wrong. I just hope the brush is salvageable. According to Flexner, lacquer will disolve with the right solvent YEARS later. I guess I'll find out first hand.

For my flaming comments: Whenever it even SEEMS that someone is talking down to me, I tend to go off the deep end in a hurry. I apologize for reacting so harshly and so quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The still disovable thing is one of the reasons I don't agree with everyones love of Nitro. That's why you hear horror stories of vintage 100k guitars ruined by a strap, chord, stand etc... I still not fully cured 50 years later. The only advantage is the relic thing and minor repair advantages. Far outweighed by the disadvantages and incredibly long curing times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The still disovable thing is one of the reasons I don't agree with everyones love of Nitro. That's why you hear horror stories of vintage 100k guitars ruined by a strap, chord, stand etc... I still not fully cured 50 years later. The only advantage is the relic thing and minor repair advantages. Far outweighed by the disadvantages and incredibly long curing times.

So what is a better alternative for the hobbiest spraying by the "old oak tree". I'm all for anything more durable...the only reason I chose nitro for my first project was because I could spray it without a booth and a forced air respirator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I chose lacquer because of it's ease to work with. No betwen coat abrading, easy application, it is it's own sealer, etc. For me, the ease of use far outweigh the "forever soluable" aspect.

As for the finish being damaged over time, that'll happen regardless of which type is used. I'm not abusive with my axes, so I'm not overly concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, the 'forever soluble' is sort of mythological; you WILL be able to see repairs, unless you refinish an entire plate, simply because the older stuff's hardened and degraded a whole lot more than whatever you spray on top of it. It is easy to spray from scratch, pretty forgiving, but it sensitises something nasty and is lovely and carcinogenic. Then again, I pretty much assume all (non-shellac) finishes are. Wear a good respirator, gloves, long sleeves, stand upwind, and go ahead and spray outside.

I've tried waterbased finishes, and they work OK. Easy to level, look decent, but stay a touch soft for me. Right now I'm using Rustin's Plastic Coating (an acid catalyzed somethingorother finish...don't quite know the chemistry), which is also nice to work with, although I'm still fiddling with test panels, checking it adheres to shellac (looks like, but I don't have any long-term confirmation), fiddling with tints, that sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a point of clarification: when you use the word "lacquer" you're referring to nitrocellulose-based lacquer, right? Lacquer is just a term to describe solvent-based varnishes/finishes.

And each type of lacquer will have its own solvent.

I used acrylic lacquer on my first guitar -- I think the main advantage there is that the acrylic don't discolor over time. Although the spray cans generally aren't great. I'm pretty sure Fender switched over to acrylics pretty early (late 60s?).

On the other hand, for anyone in Europe, I've used nitro spray cans from Laverdure here in France that are great --tons of pressure inside, so the nitro comes out really consistently, absolutely no spitting, and you can get really close to emptying the can before you lose the pressure. Kind of pricey though, because of the shipping.

How much lacquer do you need for a guitar if you're brushing it on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...