Foam. How do you like it?

[holderlin]

@$1

The molecular structure as illustrated to me when comparing Epoxy, Vinylester, and Polyester resins was in terms of linkage.

Epoxy was likened to a chain link fence but even more so, as layers of the chains on top of one another linking with each other in many directions.

**Vinylester was more like the length of chain link fence but with holes in it here and there.
**

Polyester didn’t even resemble chain link but was more linear and far less linkage than the previous two. Wide gaps in its mass lacking linkage in more than one direction.

**This explanation is obviously a simplification for graphic purposes, but it has always been my understanding that high solid epoxies have stronger mechanical properties than high grade polyesters.  Vinylester is the wild card in this equation being somewhat a hybrid though I use that term loosely.
**

All of the polymer’s you’re talking about come in a variety of flavors, but they do have some distinct characteristics.

What you’re describing is no doubt a layman’s explanation of crosslink density and hard segment content, in which case the ordering, higher to lower, of epoxy>vinyl ester>polyester is correct, generally speaking.

Epoxies are almost always very highly crosslinked, polyesters not necessarily, and a vinyl ester is basically making an ester linkage with an epoxy ring yielding a polyester with H-bond donors and more crosslinkages, which could be thought of as a kind of hybrid between the two.

So you’re right, that’s good conceptualization.

[holderlin]

@$1

This thread is BS.  Lots of hot air.  No substance. Whatever happened to the guy who was going to make a blank out of pour foam.  Remember that thread?

For X-mas gifts. Yeah that was a good one.

I’m just like that guy.

[holderlin]

@$1

Well then thats a bit better.  We are getting somewhere.  So not only do you know foam you know surfboard foam.

So great you are going to make me my dream blank.  I’m game.  

From my experience the core of the surfboard has always been the problem.  Just to keep it level I’m talking about standard available construction.  E glass and polyester resin.  Such a weak link in a boards construction but that is just how it is.  PU foam is easy to shape, color, and takes a resin that is cheap and available.  Most consumers ask for this and are not willing to pay more for something with better materials.  

So in order to make a better board my opinion is we need a better core.  My position is that I’ll sacrifice some of my time to produce as quality of a product as I can.  So you know what the density of an Arctic green is and for a given blank how much it weighs.  Same for a US red or blue.  If you told me you could produce a harder to much harder foam than the ones just mentioned but without a weight penalty but with the downside of additional tearing I would change my shaping techniques or purchase a shapers barrel for my planer.  

I would argue that the harder denser foams provide a snappier lively ride, last longer, and use less resin to laminate.  But then again I don’t think anyone has ever been able to produce a hard enough foam that was light enough for consumers to say that the ride was too stiff.  I mean look at balsa.  Never heard one person say the ride was bad, only that it was heavy.  

So for the sake of discussion you tell me no problem I can do this.  I can make a foam with the same density as whats currently available but with better mechanical properties, same price, or even a bit more.  Then great in my book you’ve got a winner.  But as a word of warning whatever you do do some testing.  Ice9 came on the scene and was giving out sample blanks of their sugar foam. Just about every single one here in Hawaii went to sh*t from wrinkling and warping after glassing, people were bummed.  

Well I’ll get to work then. Matter of fact I set up 6 different systems tonight. A couple were a bit hot, but a few were just smooth. I’m excited to cut sections and gaze into the cells. When I get really excited I sand them to see how they wear. Good times.

Sounds like Ice9’s foam wasn’t done reacting, what noobs. That’s why you do an accelerated weathering test in a humidity chamber. 

 

[holderlin]

@$1

I agree with you Mcding, but how come you and dead are now posting in Huie bold?  I think only Huie should be allowed to post like that.  

I really don’t think Huie should post.

[DEADSHAPER]

Okay, no more bold, or at least prudent and economic use of it.

Instead of joining McDing and the gang over there that has already tied a hangman’s noose and is ready to storm the sheriff’s office, I’ll just throwing questions out there.

I feel partly responsible for this ‘offshoot’ thread due to my posting of my thread on foam that would have been BETTER titled “Arctic AND Surfblanks AND U.S. Blanks Foam”.

Or some other politically correct milktoast title conjuring up a vision as if they are all skipping down Mulberry Lane together, hand in hand, like the Brady bunch. Or at least some attempt at not having my title misconstrued by Huie into a “ersonal attack” against his Aussie buddy, er, MATE, Midget.

…which STILL bewilders me, as in reviewing that ‘controversial’ thread, what if anything was or could be considered “Midget bashing”. OY, gimmee a break… I’m walking here!?

I’m not quite of the predilection that the current foam is so substandard as some make it out to be. First, considering you are talking about a material that is produced having a 2 to 3 pound density. Then taken and lightweight fiberglass and resins are applied to that core with a minimal amount of reinforcing materials that are convenient to apply and inexpensive.

If you are a DIY’er, for a couple hundred bucks you can build a product that takes a ton of load bearing from the average three foot wave, gets pounded by heel and knee bones, scraped over rocks, experiences 90 degree days on the beach only to be thrown into 55 degree water.

How would YOU fare from being subjected to this kind of use, abuse, cyclical challenge?

There was NO bashing from me on anyone’s account. Yeah, I termed the “surfer friendly” harder foam as “fuck you shaper foam”. Surfblanks had ADVERTISED openly that their foam was for surfers. But in that same breath, I also termed Arctic Foam as the “semi fuck you shapers foam”.

And before expelling all the hot air I am full of, I also added that I’d “prefer to HAND shape the softer U.S. Blanks”.

WHO got bashed? WHERE is the overwhelming favoritisim that I subliminally planted in my thread? Yeah, I’m the devil. I’ll send you a big picture and some paste for your dart board.

If anything, and I will pay the price for stating over on ‘this’ thread, that the reason I would prefer to shape the softer foam is because I can quickly mow through it w/o a lot of tearing. It sands easily and finishes nicely. BUT, I have very disciplined technique from shaping lots of blanks for many years. For a novice, soft foam could present the possibility of taking too much off in error, then it’s laying on the floor and, well, the damage is done. Even a worse scenario for some guy that has a Walter Mitty complex and decides he will get right into power sanding from the get go.

A lot of experienced guys prefer to power sand out the cuts from CNC milling.

I don’t.

Why?

Because it is less precise than block sanding my original work to a finished product.

I can power sand quite well too.

So I want to give you insight, as an experienced shaper, that I have split personalities. For hand shaping, gimmee soft and let me fly around with speed doing my little age old ‘shaper’s dance’. If I have models being milled, I want harder foam, but not a brick, but somewhere in between that I can finish by block sanding that won’t scratch easily. The in between hard and soft foam I’ve found to my liking (here we go, get ready, hunker down…) is Arctic.

So now that I have digressed, or whatever the hell the proper term is, let me finish with a question, so I can piss off the guys with the rope across the street, and perpetuate this thread with some 'semblance of validity…

MDI…uh, VERSUS TDI.

My OPINION as an uneducated surfer dude is that Methyl Phenol di Isocynates being derived from ‘groovy’ eco materials like cane and soy polyols, simply have not demonstrated the ability to attain the hardness of the big bad toluene based or TDI water blown foams currently on the market. My ‘gut feeling’ is that the physical properties aren’t there with MDI to begin with. And, to differ in my experience with the post that claimed “all the sugar blanks that came over to Hawaii failed”… uh, Ice Nine supplied me with quite a few ‘sugar’ blanks in their densities that were categorized like boxers… 'Welterweight, Bantam, Lightweight, etc. and I glassed quite a few over the period of a year with good to less than great results. People LIKED or even LOVED the ride. However, I did notice that the foam dented considerably easier during the glassing process. I know how to handle boards being glassed too. There was also discoloration on some and no problem on others. The boards that came back to me later on for repairs, had yellowed considerably.

The other eco friendly (lol) blanks are/were “Homeblown” based on SOY. In their natural state they were/are straw colored. That wasn’t an objection for a small percentage of the buying public. The verdict, however stupid it is… white good, yellow bad.

Long story short, I got on board with both efforts to use a politically correct blank. At the end of the day I look back and cringe a bit.

So my gut feeling may have some merit, being that it is backed by experience, and not a great one at that.

IS MDI BASED FOAM CHEAPER TO PRODUCE AND CAPABLE OF PRODUCING HARD FOAM EQUAL TO TDI BASED FOAM?

[ghettorat]

 MDi up to this point has proved to be inherently inferior as much as the cool-groovy-eco-warriors try to make it out to be the holy-grail.  You sheep are ready to follow the first guy that says he’s a “chemist”, putting your faith in someone who doesn’t even know what a stringer is for.  At the same time you bash someone who’s a legitimate surfing legend, and a foundational foamer and a hell of a nice guy either your stupid, paid off, or just plain ignorant; which one is it?

[thrailkill]

[quote="$1"]  ... which one is it? [/quote]

You left out curious.

[chrisp]

Any time someone disagrees with GRat’s opinion it’s this:

@$1

your stupid, paid off, or just plain ignorant;

[holderlin]

@$1

 putting your faith in someone who doesn’t even know what a stringer is for

OK I feel like I need to address this indictment individually.

To say that I don’t know what a stringer is for is like accusing one of not knowing what studs are for in building construction.

I know what a stringer is for, but I wasn’t convinced (and still not completely) that it’s neccessary in every board given a strong foam an a good coating. I just wanted to get some thoughts on it.

Something to think about is the notion that, while holding to the conviction that a stringer is essential for board integrity, this requires the the thing to be cut in half,(or adhered in the mold, still two discontinuous sections), then adhered back again to a relatively disimilar surface, all of which would seem to compromise the physical properties of the structure. Anyway…

Just a thought.

[holderlin]

@$1

IS MDI BASED FOAM CHEAPER TO PRODUCE AND CAPABLE OF PRODUCING HARD FOAM EQUAL TO TDI BASED FOAM?

They’re the same cost, genereally, but both come in many flavors.

And yes MDI is just fine.

[ghettorat]

MDI sucks.

[holderlin]

@$1

MDI sucks.

Why? Please explain.

There’s many different varieties of MDI based reactants. Saying MDI sucks is like saying polymers suck.

[beerfan]

 

With a liitle wood!!. My new custom from a sways member. No prizes for guessing who!!

[chrisp]

@$1

 

With a liitle wood!!. My new custom from a sways member. No prizes for guessing who!!

Oooooh! I’m jealous!

You’re stoked Beerfan!

[holderlin]

@$1

 

With a liitle wood!!. My new custom from a sways member. No prizes for guessing who!!

That’s pretty. And completely biobased.

[huie]

@$1

Okay, no more bold, or at least prudent and economic use of it.

Instead of joining McDing and the gang over there that has already tied a hangman’s noose and is ready to storm the sheriff’s office, I’ll just throwing questions out there.

I feel partly responsible for this ‘offshoot’ thread due to my posting of my thread on foam that would have been BETTER titled “Arctic AND Surfblanks AND U.S. Blanks Foam”.

Or some other politically correct milktoast title conjuring up a vision as if they are all skipping down Mulberry Lane together, hand in hand, like the Brady bunch. Or at least some attempt at not having my title misconstrued by Huie into a “ersonal attack” against his Aussie buddy, er, MATE, Midget.

ok you insist on draging me in to your  posts that by the way seem to go on and on its like a record that cant be turned off??

YES i do often talk with midget and as i have said before you got a beef about surfblanks america that no longer exists take it up with those from

artic  same old  eh’’

…which STILL bewilders me, as in reviewing that ‘controversial’ thread, what if anything was or could be considered “Midget bashing”. OY, gimmee a break… I’m walking here!?

i think you need to look at how you have used his name and the inuendos are enough.  ** unless as i have said before you are refering to surfblanks australia then it becomes a new ball game**

I’m not quite of the predilection that the current foam is so substandard as some make it out to be. First, considering you are talking about a material that is produced having a 2 to 3 pound density. Then taken and lightweight fiberglass and resins are applied to that core with a minimal amount of reinforcing materials that are convenient to apply and inexpensive.

If you are a DIY’er, for a couple hundred bucks you can build a product that takes a ton of load bearing from the average three foot wave, gets pounded by heel and knee bones, scraped over rocks, experiences 90 degree days on the beach only to be thrown into 55 degree water.

How would YOU fare from being subjected to this kind of use, abuse, cyclical challenge?

There was NO bashing from me on anyone’s account. Yeah, I termed the “surfer friendly” harder foam as “fuck you shaper foam”. Surfblanks had ADVERTISED openly that their foam was for surfers. But in that same breath, I also termed Arctic Foam as the “semi fuck you shapers foam”.

And before expelling all the hot air I am full of, I also added that I’d “prefer to HAND shape the softer U.S. Blanks”.

WHO got bashed? WHERE is the overwhelming favoritisim that I subliminally planted in my thread? Yeah, I’m the devil. I’ll send you a big picture and some paste for your dart board.

If anything, and I will pay the price for stating over on ‘this’ thread, that the reason I would prefer to shape the softer foam is because I can quickly mow through it w/o a lot of tearing. It sands easily and finishes nicely. BUT, I have very disciplined technique from shaping lots of blanks for many years. For a novice, soft foam could present the possibility of taking too much off in error, then it’s laying on the floor and, well, the damage is done. Even a worse scenario for some guy that has a Walter Mitty complex and decides he will get right into power sanding from the get go.

A lot of experienced guys prefer to power sand out the cuts from CNC milling.

I don’t.

Why?

Because it is less precise than block sanding my original work to a finished product.

I can power sand quite well too.

So I want to give you insight, as an experienced shaper, that I have split personalities. For hand shaping, gimmee soft and let me fly around with speed doing my little age old ‘shaper’s dance’. If I have models being milled, I want harder foam, but not a brick, but somewhere in between that I can finish by block sanding that won’t scratch easily. The in between hard and soft foam I’ve found to my liking (here we go, get ready, hunker down…) is Arctic.

So now that I have digressed, or whatever the hell the proper term is, let me finish with a question, so I can piss off the guys with the rope across the street, and perpetuate this thread with some 'semblance of validity…

MDI…uh, VERSUS TDI.

My OPINION as an uneducated surfer dude is that Methyl Phenol di Isocynates being derived from ‘groovy’ eco materials like cane and soy polyols, simply have not demonstrated the ability to attain the hardness of the big bad toluene based or TDI water blown foams currently on the market. My ‘gut feeling’ is that the physical properties aren’t there with MDI to begin with. And, to differ in my experience with the post that claimed “all the sugar blanks that came over to Hawaii failed”… uh, Ice Nine supplied me with quite a few ‘sugar’ blanks in their densities that were categorized like boxers… 'Welterweight, Bantam, Lightweight, etc. and I glassed quite a few over the period of a year with good to less than great results. People LIKED or even LOVED the ride. However, I did notice that the foam dented considerably easier during the glassing process. I know how to handle boards being glassed too. There was also discoloration on some and no problem on others. The boards that came back to me later on for repairs, had yellowed considerably.

The other eco friendly (lol) blanks are/were “Homeblown” based on SOY. In their natural state they were/are straw colored. That wasn’t an objection for a small percentage of the buying public. The verdict, however stupid it is… white good, yellow bad.

Long story short, I got on board with both efforts to use a politically correct blank. At the end of the day I look back and cringe a bit.

So my gut feeling may have some merit, being that it is backed by experience, and not a great one at that.

IS MDI BASED FOAM CHEAPER TO PRODUCE AND CAPABLE OF PRODUCING HARD FOAM EQUAL TO TDI BASED FOAM?

 

 

thank you.

 why m d i   anyway just as  dangerous as tdi

 

 cheers huie

[holderlin]

TDI is more volatile, so you’ll end up breathing more of it under the same conditions, not to mention the environmental stigma attached to it.

And there’s a much greater variety of MDI’s to choose from when formulating. I have much more adjustability.

[ghettorat]

I agree with Huie completely on this one.  Midget’s a hero, and MDI is just as dangerous, but since the US isn’t producing TDI like it used to people have to talk up MDI; phosgene killed quite a few people back in WW1

[holderlin]

There’s no phosgene in either. It’s only used as the oxygen source to go from NH2—>NCO, but you both are right.

Niether is a nice chemical. If you had to make a choice you’d go with MDI (especially pMDI) due to it being double (pMDI triple) the molecular weight = less gets in the air. And your choice of prepolymers is much more vast in MDI systems.

Although the thing about Iso’s is that they react with water forming higher molecular weight, benign, polymers, so when you work with it, leaving traces around your work space the Iso will eventually be gone, leaving a safe[r] crusty polymeric film.

[knowaloha]

how do i like it ? 

 

stringerless / eps / vac bagged with high tech goodness !