|
I belive studies have shown a savings in material cost of up to 30% with HVLP. Various models of HVLP guns will have differant air requirements to achieve 10 psi at the air cap. If he is measuring 10 psi at the gun to get 10 psi at the air cap, I dont think it will happen. The following is from the SATA site. HVLP Low Pressure Technology: modern paint spraying method with lower air cap pressure dynamic inlet pressure max. 3 bars - Atomization pressure max. 0.7 bar Reduced overspray and paint bounce-back compared to conventional paint spraying up to 30 % material savings, excellent finish no turbines necessary due to built-in air converter unlimited fields of application for all possible paint jobs. In order to obtain an excellent atomization despite the reduced air cap pressure, a large air volume is indispensable. It may be up to 40 % above the air consumption of comparable high pressure guns. Cost for this additional air consumption, at a difference of 120 l/min and with a partial paint job having a material consumption of 1 kg paint, amounts to 0.03 DM. However, this additional cost must be seen parallel to considerably increased material savings (0.60 DM for each transfer efficiency increase by 1 %; 10 - 30 % are common). Since the transfer efficiency of HVLP spray guns is in general significantly higher than that achieved with spray guns featuring a higher air cap pressure (no matter if they are called high pressure guns, conventional, compliant, T.E.C. or Trans-Tech) there is no doubt about the advantages of HVLP technology, due to the mere technical facts. Taking into consideration the paint savings potential, the cost for additional air consumption becomes fully irrelevant.
|