Document x5BzeODjRaj6QwREjYKkB1BGE

Cress Refersaeei Application Techniques Trad# sales ctauuml lEiei TO MARSHALL UfflWOBI ir. jr* -w. niff, Lab. Mr* -0. 1,, B. MStfcle, mb. If. s* W. $ulscr,berry, W13. IW8034 IBP* 0. S. Folk, Lab. Philadelphia Laboratory Inly 29. 1949 immmm r epo r t h o * M~26is $* HOI ran CRCtttAIHMf if* TOLD TRIAL OF PRESSURE TIRE ROhm-OOMfEBS This teat was conducted in a bathroom about 5' * 7s ant all four walls were roller-ooatsd, W used 679-760 Interior SemiGloss tinted green with 33-875. .Application; It took about twice as long to roller-oeat as it did tobrush this room, using the 8W Painbrits Roller (Barhes-Groea Co. j Glendale, Calif.) with the EXo-M&tlo pros sure tank (Rubberset Co., , Mewark, B* ir), The paint splatters off the roller more so than from a brush so that your hands are'covered with tiny specks of paint. The floor in places and the bathtub were covered with this fin spray. It thus required more time la cleaning up after the .job ms completed. In this room all corners and edging around doors, windows and aurbases required,cutting in with a brush before roller-coating. The painter virtually worked with a brush In. one hand and the roller-coster in the other. In a large room with long unbroken walla it might be possible to make better time but in this test-it took mm strokes with a roXXer-eo.ater, over a particular ..area, to get a good job than it would with a brush. This method is tm superior"to the ^paa" typo roller-coater* The same results war obtained with the 4* Paintrit Roller (Barnes-Gross Go., Glendale, Calif.) only with much slower application. finish! This method gives a "plnheKt~stipple* finish. ganeluslom from this teat it Is apparent that the brush. Is still superior to these roller-eoatere, as -used by .a professional painter. Results might be somewhat different in the hands of an amateur or inexpert painter. PSIUDRLPHXi yoRspp