Can anyone enlighten me about HPLV spraying. I know its been out there a while but I have always sprayed my projects with the conventional syphon feed cup I usually use Deft or Lacquer. Can one get as good of a finish with the HPLV or is conventional still the gold standard.
Thanks
Mark
Replies
Quality is just as good with savings on less material wasted. Plus it's easier to learn than conventional. Conventional is only one of many systems, airless. airless assisted, LVLP. I suggest you go to finishing sites and do some reading then ask specific targeted questions. All the answers to your questions have been answered many times over the many years HVLP has been around over 40 years. All sytems have their place along with strengths and weaknesses depending on application.
http://www.dodgepowerwagon.com/glovebox/hvlp.html
Hi Rick
Is there a weakness to HPLV that you know of? Why would you say its easier to learn?
Thanks
Mark
Because I've seen prople with no spray experience paint vehicles and they came out great. It's a little slower than conventional but it's only an issue when you are a production factory and I'm sure they have figured out how to compensate by adding another station perhaps. You get what you pay for as well. Do a search on google and you can find plenty of hvlp related info that will give all kinds of insights. Call the local dealers of spray equipment and they will probably set up a demo. Get info first hand rather than relying on some unknown person on the web to. Contact Apollo, Binks, Devilbliss etc for information. I've used Lexaire, Fuji and Binks. I prefer a compressor type gun and make sure you check out the needed cfm. Turbines are more portable.
From a spraying technique, HVLP or some of the newer LVLP guns work the same as HP guns. Proper thinning of the product is still required. In general many will prefer air compressor driven HVLP systems over the turbine systems. The turbine systems are OK for waterboarne and slow drying materials but the heat generated by the turbine causes some finishing material to be a problem.
You might want to get Charron's "Spray Painting" for some more info.
Howie,
The heat produced by the turbine can be a factor if you are not paying attention to what you are doing. As with any involved finishing project where ambient air temperature, humidity and turbine heat fluxuate, you need to adjust your materials to compensate. Turbine heat is only one factor in the equation.
Doug
Jeff Jewitt's thoughts
"I think turbines are fine for certain instances like portability, but I must tell you the hot air blown out of these things marketed as a "benefit" to finish flowout and cure is utter nonsense. In fact, the Turbinaire units I saw last weekend now offer a "heat-sink" wrap for the hose. If the hot air is so great, why offer it as an accessory."
"A turbine gun is heavy, bulky and few have any control whatsoever over the spray pattern. I think if you have a compressor or are thinking of getting one, you'll get more bang for the buck with an HVLP conversion gun such as the Walcom or Asturo."
I don't have a turbine, but I have heard the same things from many professional finishers.
Howie,
I certainly respect Jeff's views and my personal experience is that the heat is rarely a factor in small finishing projects. On projects involving prolonged spraying times, the heat is easily compensated for by adjusting your thinners and retarders. I have all three systems in my shop and the HVLP is my first choice. I might add that the quality of gun does make a substantial difference. The nice thing about WW, or other similar vocational or advocational endeavors, is that there is rarely one "right" way. Be thankful for diversity: without it there is no art or craftmanship.
Doug
Of course there are any number of ways to skin the cat but the original poster was asking some general questions about HVLP. As you know, there are two flavors of HVLP. There are pluses and minuses with both. One of the minuses with the turbine type is the heat.
That's just a fact and I don't know of any finisher who would dissagree with that. Fast drying finishes such as lacquer and shellac can be a problem with turbine units. They are fine for waterborne and other slower drying finishes. And they tend to be lower cost.
From a spray point of view, the data I have seen has shown that the conversion type tends--and I stress "tends"--to provide better performance and better atomization. Of course, much does depend on the gun and equipment is constantly improving so test results from a test by Fine Woodworking a couple of years ago may be out of date. But, I know a number of finishers and they would recommend the conversion units if the user is looking for the best equipment and cost were not a major concern.
I have not tried to make a case for either HP or HVLP, or for turbine or conversion system, only to provide some information. I have not disagreed with any of the other responders here and all sides have had an airing.
Can one get as good of a finish with the HPLV or is conventional still the gold standard.
Yes, in almost all cases one can get as good (or better) finish with an HVLP. Of course, not all HVLP systems/guns are created equal. For the most part you get what you pay for. More expensive guns tend to spray better in that they tend to atomize better.
Of course "HVLP" is a generic term. There are the so-called "true" HVLP systems that are also referred to as turbine systems. Then there are the so-called "conversion guns" that are basically a conventional gun that has been reworked to achieve much better atomization at a given air pressure. Turbine HVLP systems are self-contained and operate on slightly different technology.
Then there is the whole issue of pressure pot versus cup gun versus gravity gun for the conversion HVLP systems. Of the three, the one that I loath is the siphon-feed cup gun because it takes sooooo much air pressure to siphon the material out of the cup. It really does limit what you can do IMO.
Depending on the type of system (pot/cup/gravity) there are different limitations that are the same with conventional guns as they are with HVLP guns. The main over all limitation that I've ran into with HVLP conversion guns (the technology that I prefer) is with some of the higher solids automotive clears. I've had problems getting it to flow out. But, that's more about experience shooting those types of finishes than it is with anything inherent in the HVLP design. The high solids stuff simply behave different than the old low solids stuff like Acrylic Lacquer, for example.
If you are using a cup gun because of limited need or because your projects are small... I would encourage you to check into HVLP gravity guns if you're looking to buy. A high quality gravity gun will make a semi-experienced painter look like a total pro. I'm serious. I've seen it happen time and time again. They are super forgiving and give a very high degree of control. The downside is that they aren't designed for doing large projects.
I own two HVLP gravity guns (one cheap and one expensive) and a 2.5 gallon pressure pot with a conventional gun. My employer has half a dozen conventional siphon-feed cup guns which I never use, and several 2.5 gallon pressure pots with conventional guns as well as two 7 gallon pressure pots, also with conventional guns. They're latest purchase a couple months ago was a 2 quart pressure pot with a conventional gun. Out of all those choices, my #1 preference for small projects is my best gravity gun... followed by my 2.5 pressure pot (it's got a DeVilbiss rather than a Binks gun like all of the company's set ups have) and the 2 quart pot set up for larger projects. I use my best HVLP gravity gun for about 80% of everything I spray. That's how much I like it.
Speaking of which... I'd better get back to work here. LOL
Regards,
Kevin
Mark,
I have a LVLP system. It is compressor driven. I use it with my 4 gal 1 1/2 hp compressor w/ no problems. I only spray water base finishes with it. I like it better than the standard gun because it eliminates most of the overspray. I like a conversion gun rather than a turbine because almost everyone who has a turbine system has to thin their mat'l before they can spray. I dont have to that with my conversion gun. The difference between a LVLP and a HVLP is it uses alot less pressure in fact the less the better check out http://www.compliantspraysystems.com they sell both conversion HVLP/LVLP and turbine systems. you can also check out http://www.homesteadfinishing.com it is a very good site with a finishing forum that is ran by a very well respected and nice finisher.
Darkworksite4: Subterráneo en la república de gente de Calif
Mark,
Rick said it best.
"All systems have their place along with strengths and weaknesses depending on application."
If you don't own one, and are thinking of buying one, and already have a decent air compressor, IMO look for a name brand (Binks, DeVilbiss) gravity fed convertible combo (both conventional and HVLP) and get a large selection (at min 3 sets) of needles and tips.
It will be a learning experience.
Jon
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I've been finishing professionally since 1971. Approximately twenty years in furniture factories, and the rest doing custom work. I have owned and used conventional, airless, turbine, and "conversion" HVLP guns.
I had two different, $1000.00 turbine systems. To put it bluntly, there is nothing that any turbine system will do that a decent conversion gun won't do better, and for less money. Conversion guns are just so much more versatile and easy to use, atl least for me. I still have several Binks and De Vilbiss conventional guns, too, but I don't think I have used any of them in years except for spraying glazes or wash coats. The difference in overspray with a properly set up HVLP is amazing.
If I were going to start all over again and could have only one gun, I would pick a cup gun with a regulated, pressurized cup, like a Sharpe 998HVLP for a little over $200, or a Binks MachI for a lot more money, or an Asturo ECO with pressurized cup. Pressure feed guns require less air than siphon feed, and are more responsive and controllable in my experience.
My next acquisition would be a cheap 2 1/2 gallon pressure pot for a little over $100. I bought mine for $25 each at a garage sale and have been using them for years. The same gun hooked up to a pressure pot allows you to paint inside boxes and upside down much more easily than a cup gun. A little known secret is that you can put a pint, quart, or gallon can inside a pressure pot, and you'll never have to clean the pot. Just run a pint or so of solvent through your hose and gun when you are finished spraying, and you are clean -- easier than a cup gun.
My third acquisition would be a gravity feed gun for quick changes like touchup, color matching, etc.
The cheapest decent guns I have heard of are from Astro Pneumatic. They cost around $100 and use about 13 CFM at around 40 PSI.
The Sharpe 998HVLP takes about 7 CFM and costs a little over $200. I have had one one of these for several years, and it is a very good value.
CA technologies makes good guns, some in the under $200 range, but they generally require 13 CFM.
The various Binks Mach1 guns come with a choice of a number of air cap and nozzle combinations. some of which use as little as 5 CFM at 15 PSI, but the ones that use 8 to 10 CFM work better all around. Cost when I bought mine was over $400.
The best low CFM gun I have used is an Asturo ECO. At around $400 it is still cheap compared to a good turbine system, and I can spray all day on site with a little twin-tank hand carried compressor, since it only uses about 5 or 6 CFM, and is faster than the Binks using the same amount of air.
Any of these guns wil spray all day with a 20 or 25 gallon, 120 volt portable compressor. The Sharpe, Mach1, and Asturo will work satisfactorily with a "3HP" twin tank hand carried compressor. They will all out perform any turbine gun on the market, including the $1,000 +, four stage units, again in my experience.
There are othere excellent guns out there, but they either use too much air, like the SATA guns, cost too much, like the Kremlin airmix, or I just haven't used or owned one of them.
This is my opinion, based on literally thousands of hours of use under all sorts of conditions, with a whole lot of different equipment. I haven't used everything on the market, but I sure have used a representative sample, and I find that most finishers with similar experience agree with me. This is not to say that you wouldn't be happy with a $200 turbine setup. Many of them work fine within their limitations; it's just a matter of degree. But why settle for less, when you can get better equipment for less money?
Michael R.
A little known secret is that you can put a pint, quart, or gallon can inside a pressure pot, and you'll never have to clean the pot. Just run a pint or so of solvent through your hose and gun when you are finished spraying, and you are clean -- easier than a cup gun.
Hey! You're giving out our best secrets. <G>
I've been doing that with the can in the pot for years. I love it. Even on a dedicated gun it's a good way to go. It's just easier. Anyone wanting to convert their's should keep in mind feed tube clearance. I've had to cut off a half inch or so off the bottom of the feed tube to make room for the large cans.
I forget about it because it's in a corner broken down into it's component pieces... but, my employer has one of those Sharpe pressurized HVLP cup guns you mentioned. I shot some of the new water-based IMRON thru it a while back and it left some funky white oxidization spots on the feed tube. So, I've got it broken down. One of these days I'll clean it or replace the feed tube and put it back together. It's certainly a nice gun, though. If I weren't so smitten by my DeVilbiss GTI gravity gun, I'd probably use that one a lot. It atomizes fantastically and is really a very versatile unit. Great fan control too. But, it can't spray upside down like my gravity gun does... with an EZ-Liner kit that is.
Regards,
Kevin
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled