Glidden Gripper vs PPG gripper

Canvas covered foamies (Thrifty Alternatives...)

Moderator: eaglesdare

Re: Glidden Gripper vs PPG gripper

Postby GPW » Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:45 am

We must remember, it's just Paint ( sorta’ ) , and we can add certain things to any paint or primer to make it do what we want ( like improve adhesion ) … Any Chemists here ? There’s really nothing exotic in paint , or it would cost a Fortune , like my Artist paint that can cost several thousand dollars a Gallon ( why we buy small tubes ) .

Maybe read the Gripper can and see what it has that the others don’t … :thinking:
There’s no place like Foam !
User avatar
GPW
Gold Donating Member
 
Posts: 14192
Images: 545
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:58 pm
Location: New Orleans

Re: Glidden Gripper vs PPG gripper

Postby zzzizxz » Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:01 pm

Well, my enthusiasm has been short lived.

I thought the Bondz would be a great replacement for the Glidden based on initial tests, but I have to rescind my vote.

While it does a great job of bonding to materials, it is much thinner a material than the Glidden. Bondz takes multiple coats to achieve the same level of coverage as the Gripper, and even when it does have the same level of coverage, it does not have the same level of protection that the gripper does.

When I paint a coat of gripper over foam, if I need to sand that coat off, it takes some serious working before I can get it sanded off.

The Bondz comes off as easily as the top level of foam does.

I have to admit, I have not, and will not be using Bondz as an adhesive the way Glidden Gripper can be used. For example, to 'glue' drwyall corner bead onto the foam.

Now to keep trying to find something else...
zzzizxz
Teardrop Advisor
 
Posts: 71
Images: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:44 am

Re: Glidden Gripper vs PPG gripper

Postby GPW » Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:30 am

ZZZ, no worries , we test new things all the time … Thanks for your observations !!! :thumbsup:
There’s no place like Foam !
User avatar
GPW
Gold Donating Member
 
Posts: 14192
Images: 545
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:58 pm
Location: New Orleans
Top

Re: Glidden Gripper vs PPG gripper

Postby fishboat » Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:15 am

GPW wrote: Any Chemists here ?


yep.

I designed styrene-acrylic polymer-chain backbones for use in pigment grinding, over print varnish formulation, and coatings emulsion support. End uses were in the graphic arts industry and industrial coatings(latex house-paint/stains formulation..among others). Customers were some of the big houses..Sherwin Williams, Red Spot, PPG, Behr, Sun, Glidden, Rustoleum...others)
fishboat
Teardrop Advisor
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 2:47 pm
Top

Re: Glidden Gripper vs PPG gripper

Postby greygoos » Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:37 am

fishboat wrote:
GPW wrote: Any Chemists here ?


yep.

I designed styrene-acrylic polymer-chain backbones for use in pigment grinding, over print varnish formulation, and coatings emulsion support. End uses were in the graphic arts industry and industrial coatings(latex house-paint/stains formulation..among others). Customers were some of the big houses..Sherwin Williams, Red Spot, PPG, Behr, Sun, Glidden, Rustoleum...others)

Any suggestions for those of us who would like to come up with a substitute for Gripper. I ask that you not be discouraged by the naysayers some of which always have something to say but have never posted an actual example of a build or practical solution.
greygoos
Silver Donating Member
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:15 am
Location: Syracuse NY
Top

Re: Glidden Gripper vs PPG gripper

Postby John61CT » Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:39 am

Have you done enough testing to also eliminate the new PPG version of Gripper?
John61CT
1000 Club
1000 Club
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:36 pm
Top

Re: Glidden Gripper vs PPG gripper

Postby fishboat » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:39 am

greygoos wrote:Any suggestions for those of us who would like to come up with a substitute for Gripper.


The first thing I'd do before jumping ship is to make sure the original Gripper formulation is really gone**. The latter part of my post earlier in this thread covers my thoughts. It may well be the original formulation is sold under a different label, or in a different application. Contact the PPG Latex(Waterbased) Coatings Technical Service Group. They will have one..you just need to get at it. The number may not be public. Don't talk to the Customer Service Group as they are generalists that field inquiries for hundreds to thousands of products..and they're not technical people, so they won't grasp your questions or have any answers beyond the get you off the phone party line. You might call the general customer service line and ask how to get in touch with Latex(Waterbased) Coatings Technical Service Group (for Gripper). If you don't get a good answer..keep trying..the group exists.

..did a quick search..found this group:
https://www.ppgpmc.com/About-Us/Service ... pport.aspx

..though they may not be the ones that handle Gripper. But it's an inside number..ask them if they handle it, and if not, ask if they can they give you the number of the tech service group that does.

PPG (Tech Service) may well tell you(a low volume one-off consumer) nothing has changed as you're asking a question that is proprietary information. If that's what you hear, then make sure they understand your application and ask if they have any other product(s) that might work well. Tell them what isn't working under the new label-(presumed new) formula. If they did change something*** they'll want to hear about changes in end-use performance. Whatever they suggest has to be available on the consumer market..ask. There's a multitude of products that non-commercial consumers never see. Be polite & respectful. If you make any rude remarks or unfounded claims, you're sarcastic or you lie..you're done...and you may well cook the goose of anyone else asking similar questions. Tech Service people are highly skilled, professional people & the TS group is typically understaffed and very busy. Their hands are full of real problems that impact real money...you're problem, and the time it takes to solve it, means zero revenue to them.



(**As side note..HD stores in SE WI have the original Gripper in stock..for the moment. If someone anticipates need some, I'd stock up. An unopened container of latex can be good for years if stored in cool temps..and not frozen. You might want to turn it upside down now and then to keep the TiO2, talc..whatever they use for the opacifier..from caking down too hard on the bottom.)

(***..if the binder in this formulation is styrene-acrylic based..I'm guessing it is..they may have done something so simple as substituted more styrene for the acrylates in the polymer formula. Styrene is 1/2 to 1/4 the price of acrylate monomers. Styrene could well decrease adhesion(the pure polystyrene is a brittle glass-like material) and it will certainly decrease UV stability..the benzene ring in the styrene molecule isn't UV stable..though in a primer this may not matter.)

Regarding the suggestion to use the PPG Gripper (or some primer) as a base and then add in other materials in the hope to get the performance you want..you can try it(I wouldn't risk a whole gallon in testing), but the probability of it working is on the low side. Latexes (essentially solid or semi-solid polymer billiard balls suspended in water..the stable suspension is based on ionic or non-ionic surfactants, or in my work, water-ammonia soluble styrene-acrylic copolymers) are somewhat fragile beasts. If you add other components they may be incompatible with the dried/drying coating or they could collapse the latex..in which case you end up with a container full of cottage cheese. Try it though..it may work.
fishboat
Teardrop Advisor
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 2:47 pm
Top

Re: Glidden Gripper vs PPG gripper

Postby MatBirch » Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:57 am

FWIW-
My testing only started in recent months. My local HD only had “Gripper” and I was unaware of a difference. The can I have is PPG.
My tests were done with TB2 and the Gripper. The Gripper tests on foam, and aluminum were all very very good when compared to anything I could get with TB2. (On luan plywood, both products were great).
Unaware that there are two Gripper products, and knowing most people have used TB2 With great success, led me to conclude that I will be using the Gripper I tested. PPG Gripper. I am confident it will be better than TB2.
One tip- my very best adhesion was created by not sanding my foam, but giving it a QUICK, “dry” wipe with brake cleaner.

My only minor concern is that the TB2 creates a much harder surface, which should be more resistant to dents and scratches. I’m hoping my choice of topcoats will help with that.
MatBirch
Teardrop Builder
 
Posts: 29
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:54 pm
Top

Re: Glidden Gripper vs PPG gripper

Postby joshuag » Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:36 pm

Not sure if this helps, but here is the free poly-fiber manual for coating airplanes with fabric. I haven't had a chance to review it yet.

https://www.conaircraft.com/download-manuals
-Joshua

I want to build a Tipoon clone foamie.

Tipoon Youtube
joshuag
Teardrop Inspector
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:25 pm
Top

Re: Glidden Gripper vs PPG gripper

Postby GPW » Tue Jul 09, 2019 5:56 am

Fish , many THANKS !!! That was very enlightening !!! :thumbsup: 8)

Naturally in the Foamling manner , we’ll use What we can get !!! ( but we’ll test it first ) ;)

PS. you know you can adhere canvas with just paint ( oops paint works , tried that ) … :o I believe ( please correct me Fish) that the only big difference between Primer and paint is the colored pigment … basically …sorta’ ish ‘ ... :NC
There’s no place like Foam !
User avatar
GPW
Gold Donating Member
 
Posts: 14192
Images: 545
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:58 pm
Location: New Orleans
Top

Re: Glidden Gripper vs PPG gripper

Postby fishboat » Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:19 am

GPW wrote:..I believe ( please correct me Fish) that the only big difference between Primer and paint is the colored pigment … basically …sorta’ ish ‘ ... :NC


..sorta..kinda-ish..in an approximate sort of way..

All below is greatly simplified..so some my note some "yah, but's.." that arise from the simplification.

First..a diagram of a latex film formation
Image

"Primer" and "Paint" are just words. Words that describe an enduse, but the enduse is what dictates what a product is made of...that..and what the intended market will pay. What the market will pay has the largest influence on product components and ultimate performance**. The house paint and primer market is notorious for demanding a hard "low-cost" approach..and yet they want ultimate performance(better, cheaper, faster..pick two). Price-performance is where suppliers & paint mfg's make their money. With the constraint of tight cost control, the development chemist (me..and those I worked with) are tasked with using a palette of lower-cost monomers and minimizing the use of moderately-priced monomers. Combine potential monomer mixes with an extensive palette of processing options and you get prototype products that might address the needs of any particular customer-end-use.

Example: A customer (Sherwin Williams***, Valspar, Behr..........) comes to us and says.. "We need a latex base**** that has superior adhesion to raw wood, pine pitch, light grease/dirt, and painted surfaces, it dries tack free, it has some flexibility under impact testing, topcoats well, and is compatible with & can support a very high loading of TiO2. Minimal moisture transmission is a definite plus that we'd pay a little more for."

****A "latex base" is typically a mixture of 2, 3, 4 unique latexes (latices) that yield a prototype "product". One latex, a unique-proprietary product-by-process made up of multiple monomers, may have great adhesion properties, but it too soft to offer a tack-free surface when applied and dry...and it's expensive. Another product-by-process (PBP) latex is hard, offering a tack-free surface when dry, and is cheap to make...often this is a latex with high styrene content. Yet another latex (made of multiple monomers) is known to have great compatibility properties with coatings applied on top of it. Mix the three latices together and you get a prototype that has good adhesion, is compatible with topcoats, and is cheap enough to meet the cost constraints implied by the customer.

An additional tool in the chemist's pocket is to build the latex having a core-shell morphology. As I mentioned above, a latex is a polymer billiard ball suspended in a water(aqueous) matrix. That polymer billiard ball started out as a monomer that was fed into a water solution and polymerized in that aqueous matrix. Let's say monomer A, that yields a soft-gummy surface when polymerized and laid down as a coating, is known to yield great adhesion, but is very expensive. Monomer B is a hard monomer..it yields a hard, tack-free surface when polymerized, and is cheap to purchase and process. If you mix monomer A & B and then feed it into the water/soap/resin/free radical polymerization initiator solution and polymerize it, you'll end up with a copolymer (co..two monomers mixed together in the same polymer chain) billiard ball suspended in an aqueous matrix. That copolymer ball will have a uniform composition of the two monomers. This process wastes the expensive momoner A as great adhesion to some surface isn't needed inside the ball..it's only needed at the point where the ball meets the surface it's applied to. Using this process, to get great adhesion you have to use more of monomer A, driving the cost up and the tack-free properties of the final film down. If you take a core-shell approach, your polymer billiard ball has a morphology like a candy M&M. You keep the monomers separate and feed the reactor/polymerize the hard monomer B first, then feed the soft-expensive monomer A into the reactor and polymerize it as a thin shell covering the hard polymer B ball. You now have a latex that can offer great adhesion and a tack free coating surface at minimal cost. Core-shell latices have different performance properties than just mixing a polymer A latex with a polymer B latex.

The advantage/disadvantage balance is brutal in chemical-polymer research. If you try to maximize one property in a product, it invariably decreases some other property you really need. In that vein..the above, "take a primer and add some stuff to get what you want" sounds good, but it isn't that simple...95% of the time.


**You want ultimate performance..look to products made for very special applications and customers with big pockets..the military & others. Ultimate performance is nearly always available..for an ultimate price.

***Some paint mfgs buy all their raw material latexes/additives on the open commodity/specialty market and then use them to formulate their own products. I worked at one of those suppliers..the best(and most expensive) one out there..so the industry customer surveys indicated for decades. A number of the paint manufacturers, like SW, are backward integrated and make their own base polymer latexes at less cost than buying them on the open market. SW and others would buy from us when they needed performance and they couldn't figure out how to make(reverse-engineer) what we made..and we'd charge them accordingly. Two different polymer manufacturers could make the same polymer formula and end up with one product that works as expected and one that fails miserably in use. The key is in intellectual property which yields a "product by process"...how you make it matters as much as what you make it out of.


OK..having said all that..what was the question:
"GPW":..I believe ( please correct me Fish) that the only big difference between Primer and paint is the colored pigment … basically …sorta’ ish'

In a simplified form:

1) An (aqueous) Primer is a mix of polymer latices + pigment for color (if any) + LOTS of opacifier (TiO2, talc..etc) all highly optimized for opacity, adhesion, stain-blocking, topcoat compatibility, tack-free film, latex stability....

2) An (aqueous) Paint is a mix of polymer latices + pigment for color + sufficient opacifier(TiO2, talc..etc) all highly optimized for opacity, adhesion, appearance, gloss level, stain resistance, washablility, UV resistance, water resistance, long-term performance, roller application performance, viscosity stability........................................................

3) An (aqueous) Varnish is a mix of polymer latices with no pigment, or opacifier highly optimized for adhesion, crystal-clear appearance, gloss level, UV resistance, water resistance, long-term performance, viscosity stability........................................................

4) An (aqueous) Semi-transparent Stain is a mix of polymer latices with pigment for color, no opacifier or a slight amount highly optimized for adhesion, semi-transparent appearance, gloss level, UV resistance, substrate permeability, water resistance, long-term performance, viscosity stability........................................................

5) An (aqueous) Opaque Stain is a mix of polymer latices with pigment for color, sufficient opacifier highly optimized for adhesion, opaque appearance, gloss level, UV resistance, substrate permeability, water resistance, long-term performance, viscosity stability........................................................

The base latices in all the above will be different, with different additives, different optimizations in formula and/or process, different ASTM tests...............

So
"GPW":..I believe ( please correct me Fish) that the only big difference between Primer and paint is the colored pigment … basically …sorta’ ish'


"Big difference"..yah..sort of, but under that thin generalization, no, not really. From a development and performance standpoint paints and primers are very different animals with very different requirements that require very different approaches.

FWIW..as a wild guess..The developing the old Glidden Gripper could easily keep a team of 4-6 scientists and engineers busy full time for a year or more to design and optimize. If it truly has changed or the original formula has been taken off the market, there has to be a compelling cost or regulatory reason. It may be that PPG moved the production to one of their own facilities, are using the old formula, and they don't know how to make it. Having experienced several company-sold events, the company that got bought often loses considerable IP talent. When you move a plant..the experienced, older folks don't move and that IP is lost. The new company may or may not follow the old reactor design, formulas, processes, or have access to the right raw materials, or know how to use them. The result is they screw up the value that they paid for in the purchase and spend years and millions$ trying to get back to normal, if they ever do. BTDT...hard to watch. Companies prefer not to value people..and that preference costs them dearly...but the execs all cash big checks with buying/selling divisions..so it's all good..I guess.
fishboat
Teardrop Advisor
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 2:47 pm
Top

Re: Glidden Gripper vs PPG gripper

Postby joshuag » Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:48 am

Nice... Thanks fishboat. Forgive me if I'm wrong but when the data sheets were compared, Glidden had a higher opacifier count than PPG. I'm assuming there is no easy way to add more TiO2/talc to PPG from an end-user perspective.
-Joshua

I want to build a Tipoon clone foamie.

Tipoon Youtube
joshuag
Teardrop Inspector
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:25 pm
Top

Re: Glidden Gripper vs PPG gripper

Postby joshuag » Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:50 am

I doubt this problem could be fixed by adding baby powder to PPG, but how cool would that be if it worked!
-Joshua

I want to build a Tipoon clone foamie.

Tipoon Youtube
joshuag
Teardrop Inspector
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:25 pm
Top

Re: Glidden Gripper vs PPG gripper

Postby zzzizxz » Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:55 am

MatBirch wrote:FWIW-
My testing only started in recent months. My local HD only had “Gripper” and I was unaware of a difference. The can I have is PPG.
My tests were done with TB2 and the Gripper. The Gripper tests on foam, and aluminum were all very very good when compared to anything I could get with TB2. (On luan plywood, both products were great).
Unaware that there are two Gripper products, and knowing most people have used TB2 With great success, led me to conclude that I will be using the Gripper I tested. PPG Gripper. I am confident it will be better than TB2.
One tip- my very best adhesion was created by not sanding my foam, but giving it a QUICK, “dry” wipe with brake cleaner.

My only minor concern is that the TB2 creates a much harder surface, which should be more resistant to dents and scratches. I’m hoping my choice of topcoats will help with that.


Thank you again! I hadn't realized that your tests (That I used in making my choice) had been done with PPG. It makes me a lot more comfortable using it in my build.

I still have about half a gallon of Glidden, and I'll keep that for really important spots, but I'll use PPG for the rest of it.
zzzizxz
Teardrop Advisor
 
Posts: 71
Images: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:44 am
Top

Re: Glidden Gripper vs PPG gripper

Postby fishboat » Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:14 pm

joshuag wrote:Nice... Thanks fishboat. Forgive me if I'm wrong but when the data sheets were compared, Glidden had a higher opacifier count than PPG. I'm assuming there is no easy way to add more TiO2/talc to PPG from an end-user perspective.


Adding an opacifier can be as easy as mixing flour into cake batter. Sprinkle some in and stir it in good. You can try a power mixer, but high shear can destabilize a latex and it may collapse...worth a try. PPG may have reduced the TiO2 content..it can be pricey.

I'm not clear why additional opacifier would fix apparent issues..which I think are adhesion. Opacifier just hides the substrate when applied as a coating. Adhesion is more a latex composition and/or additive issue.

On a related note..I think someone mentioned that one SDS(safety data sheet, former MSDS) included a styrene-acrylic copolymer while the other did not. Both the Glidden & PPG material would have a styrene-acrylic copolymer as the binder(I haven't looked at the SDS from either company). There's an "art" to writing an SDS. The "best" writers will meet all the government regs and say absolutely nothing useful with regard to composition. While some may state "styrene-acrylic copolymer" or "styrene-2-ethylhexyl acrylate copolymer" others may state "copolymer" or "proprietary copolymer" or "proprietary material". Styrene-acrylic copolymers burn to CO2 and water and no noxious gases like hydrogen sulfide, sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, cyanide...so they may have more leeway in not including the actual polymer material used as the binder.
fishboat
Teardrop Advisor
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 2:47 pm
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Foamies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest