Soda-blasting. - What is better sandblasting or soda blasting?

filip2431 wrote:

is baking soda the same as caustic soda

filip2431 wrote:

If I poured water from a watering can over such soda and stood in it or put my bare hand on it, something would happen to me?

lukas_2005 wrote:

I'm working on a Soda blast.
Generally no revelation. Soda can't cope with rust, the machine itself is incredibly expensive, and this is typically American marketing. Soda is about 10 times more expensive than sand. Polish machines are much cheaper and less complicated.

ray_bones wrote:

'Soda blasting' differs from 'sandblasting' in that you use different types of abrasives that have their advantages and disadvantages, some overwhelming the other and vice versa, depending on the application.

Quote:

it does not cause any pneumoconiosis

Which doesn't mean you can 'soda' without filtering the inhaled air like you would with any other abrasive blasting process.

First of all, soda is soft, i.e. 2.5 in Mohs hardness scale where sand, steel shot, cut wire, aluminum oxide, copper slag etc. is 6-9 on this scale (maximum 10 is diamond). The softness of soda is an advantage only when, for example, removing paint from wood, plastics or an uncorroded car. For aggressive rust, you need an aggressive / sharp and hard abrasive. Certainly the advantage is that you can dry dust under a cloud, which cannot be done with quartz sand.

The main disadvantage of soda is its solubility in the water contained in the compressed air. Hence the need for better air drying and a different structure of the blast machine tank compared to classic sandblasters. The main difference is the jet pump inside the blast machine instead of the dosing valve and that's all this sophisticated technology. All this to eliminate the disadvantages of the sticking abrasive, not to improve the cleaning process ...

Moreover, the abrasive is expensive and cannot be reused . It has its advantages which in some applications outweigh the disadvantages. However, in most applications, this is a fad with no economic justification. It will certainly work for cleaning old hovels from the state budget, etc. where the client does not care much about money and the technology from the USA sounds fascinating.

Is it three times more efficient than sandblasting, according to the lobbyists of this method? Compared to a vacuum gun / small vacuum booth, probably yes. Comparing to shot blasting or 'sandblasting' of steel with alumina with recirculation of the abrasive, it is only a substitute for high-performance abrasive blasting.

In general, the Polish representative of the above-mentioned products The company praises the advantages to the heavens, writes about patents (for what, maybe a trademark) and three times greater efficiency compared to unknown what. It does not say anything about the disadvantages of which there are more than advantages that can be read on the web, reaching for sources other than equipment manufacturers / sellers ...

filip2431 Being green in the industry, you won't do much by reading just advertising slogans.

filip2431 wrote:

I don't mean that I don't know myself, I will do it anyway. I prefer to take a painter-sandblaster course and then think more about it. I'm not that I have done a few sandblasting times and I already know everything. But thank you anyway for explaining the differences and I know that it will be better to do this treatment with sand than with soda. Besides, it is not like I read on page soda blast systems and I am happy, in a sense the content of this page has enriched my knowledge about soda, however, as I wrote above in my other post on this topic, that "I do not really believe in it "and there is also the fact that I also read other forums where there are topics about sandblasting to have some idea about it, not that I only read about soda blast and that's enough for me.

Greetings.

filip2431 wrote:

only that then, whether in an advertisement or during an interview, they may ask if you have the right or qualifications to perform such work.