Document aBJYyVa1JDnbJD1xLD0LZDvKR

' Cross Index - 80 Line Brush "Duco" Trade Sales . .Hr Co Wo Clark, Chisago Mr. ? Jo Griffin, Everett Mr. E. Jo Hacfarlan, So, San Franc Mr, Ho' F Bodln, Ft, Madison Hr, Co Bo Eo Merkle, Lab. Mr. B. L. Mansi, Lab, "INDEXED" HPl6'55 Philadelphia Laboratory January 23, 195 LABORATORY MEMORANDUM REPORT 10, M-279 80 LIRE BRUSH VDUCO" FLEXIBILITY CHECK Introduction? (1) In comparing the nets 6.15 Line enamels developed for Export Sales {Release Letter #1229) with Brush "Duco,! to check for drying, hardness, gloss and build, there appeared some evidence of poor flexibility of the current Brush "Duca ' psrticularily with respect to white and light tints. This evidence was based on results obtained from 1 coat brusbouts over unsanded steel (2) In order to definitely establish as to whether current "Duco" production did possess poor flexibility, a new series of tests were started wlbtlch included various formula modifications and inter plant production. These products were tested over sanded and un sanded bare .steel and over sanded and unsanded undercoated wooden panels. Summary: (A) This recheck has definitely illustrated that the poor showing of Brush "Duco" In the Initial teats was not a question of poor flexibility, but poor adhesion over unproperly prepared sub strates. This la based on the significant differences in adhesion between sanded and unsanded steel and the fact that when applied over undercoated wooden surfaces, the adhesion is perfect. (B) There appeared no significant differences with respect to adhesion or flexibility among the various formula modifications or the inter-plant production. (c) There is still an advantage in adhesion In favor of the cheaper line of enamels, which it is felt la brought about by the fact that these products are considerably lower in solids and viscosity than 80 Line "Due" thereby resulting in thinner films which account for improved adhesion. N35403 Details: (A) Included in the above testa were the following "Bueo" formula raodifleatlonii and inter-plant production samples 0 1, Soya Oil v3o linseed 2* Rutile To o Anatas Titanium pigments l Glycerin vs* P E0 Old PooEoo vVii2jos cUuUriTreCnavt PFpoEEt*i I: TiCal vs, Burfez (how hiding formulas), Ueofa<t; #7 vs* K-2&0 and VM-7790 7. Production samples from Chicago, Ft* Madison and South Ban Franc iecOoO***^ 8,, Tabulated data of the above tests is recorded in Book #5157 PHILADELPHIA LABORATORY BLMird DUP030003172