Replies

1. 
   TomT226 | Jul 02, 2003 07:38pm | #1

   Asturo 9010 HVLP/SP with a 2-qt pressure pot. Sprays anything you can get into the pot, and has a bunch of different needle and orifice choices. Go to http://www.homesteadfinishing.com and look.

2. 
   Westchester | Jul 03, 2003 03:34am | #2

   Hello Klink

   I think what your asking is can a HVLP spray everything.  The answer is simply - you must thin the finishes as necessary!   Nozzle size also matters.

   If I was deciding whether to buy an HVLP or compressor system the determining factor would be if it needed to be portable or not. The difference is both systems do a fine job, but the HVLP can be taken to the site.

   Regards,

   SA

3. 
   Shep | Jul 03, 2003 03:42am | #3

   klink-- what you want is a three- stage HVLP system. I have a two-stage Wagner pro model which can handle most of what I do, which is water- based finishes.  For heavier finishes you'll need more power ( and probably still have to thin them).  I hope this helps.

4. 
   IanC | Jul 03, 2003 04:12am | #4

   I bought a Fuji Q3 system from Tool Crib about 3 years ago.  The needle it comes with ( #3?) has handled all the clear finishes I've tried, including Deft, Varnish, Poly, and Shellac.  Each has to be thinned with appropriate thinner.  I used the included viscosity cup for awhile but soon started thinning by eye, watching it drip off of a stick.   After a failed attempt to spray latex paint, I contacted Fuji and they recommended a larger (#4 I believe) needle.  So now I'm also spraying latex and oil base paint.  I've read some about Apollo, Asturo and Fuji sprayers, all seem to be  higher end than Wagner and CH.  Can't speak for the others but the quality of the Fuji hardware is excellent and customer service (out of Canada) has been excellent as well. 

   Ian Cummins

5. 
   Kevin | Jul 03, 2003 05:51am | #5

   I'm going to ditto Tom's suggestion of an HVLP conversion gun and 2 quart pressure pot. You'll find that an extremely versatile set up. I'm partial to DevilBiss spray equipment, personally.

   Regards,

   Kevin

6. 
   WorkshopJon | Jul 06, 2003 01:28pm | #6

   "Any Suggestions on HVLP systems?  I want a system that will handle Varnishes and Lacquers,"

   Klink,

   You read so much about HVLP systems nowadays, you would think they were the only kind of system out there. FWIW, for what you are probably going to be doing, a conventional gun is probably a better choice.

   I have been spraying all sorts of finishes professionally for well over 20 years, and can say I that lacquers especially, spray best out of a conventional gun.  You have to get the right balance out nozzle/needle size, thinner ratio and type, and PSI, but compared to HVLP, it is easier to use and using one results in a better finish.

   HVLPs came about due to EPA mandates, not because they lay down a better finish (though they can under some circumstances). All the hype of their much higher transfer efficiencies aside, You can come close with a conventional gun IF you are not in a rush.

   Jon

1. 
   Kevin | Jul 06, 2003 08:45pm | #7

   I agree with Jon here in that a conventional gun can be adjusted to increase the transfer efficiency (which is the entire point behind HVLP technology) while still laying down a very nice spray pattern. And also that conventional guns are easier to use in many situations.

   Personally, I've got two HVLP guns - both are gravity guns. On my 2.5 gallon pressure pot I've got a conventional gun (DevilBiss JGA 503) and am perfectly happy and content to leave a conventional gun on my pressure pot. In my experience HVLP guns are better suited to spraying thin materials, while thicker materials are easier to apply with a conventional gun. My pressure pot set up is devoted to spraying lacquers and conversion varnishes. My gravity guns are devoted to spraying stains, sealers (automotive), basecoat, primer (automotive), etc... all of which are of a thinner consistency than the clears that I shoot out of my pressure pot.

   Having gotten used to spraying with HVLP guns, I do set up my conventional gun a little differently than I did before the HVLP technology came out. I use quite a bit less atomizing air than before - which improves the transfer efficiency.

   Bottom line: Like Jon, I've been doing this for 20 years or so and, like Jon, prefer a conventional gun for spraying lacquers and any other clear... provided it's connected to a pressure pot of some type. I'll take an HVLP gravity gun over a conventional siphon-feed cup gun 6 days a week and twice on Sundays, though. There is nothing about a cup gun that I like. Siphon-feed cup guns are old technology that have been surpassed in every way by gravity guns IMHO.

   BTW you can buy conventional gravity guns too. And they do cost less than HVLP gravity guns. But, if you live in a large metropolitin area you may have a hard time finding conventional guns for sale due to EPA regs.

   Regards,

   Kevin

1. 
   WorkshopJon | Jul 06, 2003 09:23pm | #8

   "BTW you can buy conventional gravity guns too....."

   Kevin ,

   You are correct, they do make them. But you can also buy combo  HVLP/conventional (just change the tips/needles/nozzles) gravity fed.

   Not to veer off this thread too much, but since the original poster mentioned wanting to spray lacquers......A common mistake made when trying to improve "flowout" is to use more thinner. Better IMOE to use a high temp thinner, less of it and a larger nozzle/needle combo and keep the pressure down and shoot for a coarser atomization. Trust me on this one, it works( hotter flash-off thinner takes care of the orange peel, less thinner negates runs)

   Jon 

1. 
   Kevin | Jul 07, 2003 12:09am | #9

   Good point about the combo guns that are out now. The manufactorers are getting more savvy about marketing their equipment. The baffle behind the tip is, in most cases, the only thing that differentiates an HVLP conversion gun from a conventional gun anyway.

   On the use of hotter thinner... you're preachin' to the choir on that one. <g> That's precisely why I am so fond of using MEK/PM Acetate. What I didn't understand until relatively recently when I started digging into organic chemistry was that the MEK changes the viscosity/surface tension of nitro lacquer above and beyond what one would usually expect from simply reducing the lacquer with a solvent. This change in viscosity allows the larger particles of lacquer to flatten out immediately when they hit the surface of the  piece being sprayed - thus eliminating orange peel. A retarder like PM Acetate aids in the flow out and also works to prevent blushing associated with the hotter solvent.

   An added benefit of spraying with the lower atomizing pressure, as you described it, is that it is much easier to spray inside corners (such as the inside of a cabinet) because with the lower air pressure there is less turbulence in the corners. Of course you already know this. I just want to throw that out there for those who may be skeptical about spraying this way. When I was first learning to use spray equipment I thought that higher air pressure was better because it would atomize better. It does do that, but there is a price to pay. I had to have it proven to me before I began to use lower pressures with different solvent blends. That is also why I loath siphon-feed cupguns. The volume of air required to pull up the fluid also makes it harder to apply... particularly on inside corners and the insides of cabinets.

   Regards,

   Kevin

1. 
   roscoe | Jul 07, 2003 05:38am | #10

   A very informative thread and being a newbie to this forum I am absolutely blown away by the information that is available and people are willing to share.I have been making sawdust and a fair amount of firewood for longer than I like to think. Having access to sites like this will sure cut down on the firewood. A big thank you to all that share their invaluable knowledge