# Copper sheeting & CopperCoat anti-fouling



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

We've been researching the history of anti-fouling on boats toward resolving that issue as best as can be accomplished this year.

From marine history, (British War ships first discovered it), copper sheets / plates, (eventually it evolved into a mixture with 5% nickel included) work the best of all. 

So, ideally, I would like to install the copper sheeting with the 5% nickel, and I will look into that when we get to Fort Lauderdale next fall. There was a company doing that down there, but they went out of business over a decade ago. I have found sources of copper sheeting with the 5% nickel, and might consider installing it myself. 

However, this Coppercoat product appears to provide the closest base to that, and theoretically, the application process (using epoxy) has been refined / designed to accomplish the adhesion goal better than sheeting.

The CopperCoat site has a testimonials page with reviews from a number of sailing magazines too, which sounds quite positive.

A friend of mine asked about removing the CopperCoat if it doesn't work, to accomplish painting, but a number of years ago I applied a barrier coat on the Gulfstar we owned at the time, of West System, which is an epoxy, and then applied typical anti fouling paint over that without any problems..... so.... I would assume Coppercoat / epoxy could also be painted over. But, I sure would be surprised to find myself painting over copper. 

I have read through numerous Sailnet.com postings about copper / epoxy results, and there seems to be a frequent mix up between the other companies, not Coppercoat, which have gone out of business, with the CopperCoat product. 

Evelyn and I spoke with the owner of the CopperCoat company at a Newport boat show a couple of years ago. He was vehement (almost frothing at the mouth) about the battle he is waging with the paint anti-fouling companies, since he says they have been working quite hard to "slander" his product. He said he has initiated court cases against them for this organized slander. I could well imagine how much regular / paint antifouling companies might fear such a product. 

Overall, it appears important to use the process and the materials from the company, and not try to make a home made mixture. And, to follow this up with "scuffings" to bring fresh copper to the surface over time.

So, I was wondering if any of you have actually used CopperCoat, properly applied per their instructions, and what your results were?

And, or, has anyone installed copper sheeting?


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

Doug,

You might want to look over our web site and Youtube channel. We first used a product called CopperPoxy. I can't get it now. It lasted us about 11 years from the San Francisco Bay area to and through the Sea of Cortez! We tried mixing our own copper in epoxy (NO GOOD!)!!. Last year we applied Coppercoat (see on Youtube). We have posted a one year report so far. 

From OUR usage, IT WORKS! for hard growth, not soft stuff/slime.

Greg


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

DougSabbag said:


> So, I was wondering if any of you have actually used CopperCoat, properly applied per their instructions, and what your results were?


CopperCoat on a Hallberg-Rassey 43 in Berkeley.












DougSabbag said:


> ...has anyone installed copper sheeting?


Do you honestly believe that 300-year-old technology is going to provide you better performance than current anti fouling coatings?


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

I've been following the discussions of paint vs copper powder/epoxy for a few years now. 
I wish someone would setup and do half their boat in paint and the other half in copper powder/epoxy. Maybe quarter the application so one can't blame starboard/port exposure for the results.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Captainmeme said:


> I've been following the discussions of paint vs copper powder/epoxy for a few years now.
> I wish someone would setup and do half their boat in paint and the other half in copper powder/epoxy. Maybe quarter the application so one can't blame starboard/port exposure for the results.


Well, if the stuff is the best thing since sliced bread, you'd think the manufacturers would do some kind of side-by-side comparisons. But they don't. And I have to wonder why.


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

Fstbttms said:


> Well, if the stuff is the best thing since sliced bread, you'd think the manufacturers would do some kind of side-by-side comparisons. But they don't. And I have to wonder why.


Point well taken Fastbottoms and could apply to the paint companies as well.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

I raced on a Catalina 30 out of Shilshole for over 10 years, and he has a coppercoat bottom. At least that's what I assume it is. It's an epoxy with copper powder bottom that was applied by the yard 15 or 20 years ago and he hasn't painted it since. 

I think it's pretty great myself, since he never has to paint his boat, but last time I talked with him he says he wished he would have just gone the regular route. 

Why??? He says that the only way to keep it working is to sand and scrub it constantly. The exposed copper oxidizes quickly and must be sanded away exposing more. He still has to haul out every 2-3 years and scrub/sand the bottom like mad and yards that will allow you to do that are getting harder and harder to find. He also dives the boat and scrubs the bottom before each race, so that's probably 10 times/year. 

Still, not having to paint the bottom for over a decade seems pretty great, but on the other hand, if you still have to haul, and work like a fiend (or pay someone to work on it) then what do you really save? 

MedSailor


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Met an old guy hauled in Trinidad, late last year, with a copper sheathed wooden boat. Unwashed bottom looked like it had been pressure cleaned. He said it was 3 years since his last haul out.
Two big problems with copper sheathing;
1) how do you attach it to glass hull?; obviously it won't work on any metal hull, which brings up problem #2) galvanic action with metal boats (or other metal objects) in your marina. Big problem!
Copper sheeting does work as an antifouling, but it is quite impractical and expensive to do. Wood boat application requires a layer of tarred felt between boat and copper. Hello EPA?


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Fstbttms said:


> CopperCoat on a Hallberg-Rassey 43 in Berkeley.
> 
> Do you honestly believe that 300-year-old technology is going to provide you better performance than current anti fouling coatings?


Well.... basically, a sailboat is utilizing "technology" which is much older than that, and we move along quite nicely. So, just being older than me is not necessarily a deal breaker.

The basic "technology" of the copper clad British War ships of the 1700s, i.e., copper, is what we ARE still using today, just in different, and weaker, formulations.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Delezynski said:


> Doug,
> 
> You might want to look over our web site and Youtube channel. We first used a product called CopperPoxy. I can't get it now. It lasted us about 11 years from the San Francisco Bay area to and through the Sea of Cortez! We tried mixing our own copper in epoxy (NO GOOD!)!!. Last year we applied Coppercoat (see on Youtube). We have posted a one year report so far.
> 
> ...


Hello Greg!

I greatly appreciate your meticulous efforts at documenting your experiences! Bravo Sir!

I am wondering, given your CopperCoat evaluation "Op-Eval" #2 was after about 4 + months of being in the water, (besides the blister experience), how would you say the CopperCoat performed vs. a similar time frame of regular antifouling paint on your boat? Would you have expected to have more growth than you found using the CopperCoat?

Thank you!
Doug


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

I would be interested to know why an epoxy coating that contains a lot of copper would work so much better than a paint like Trinidad SR which is, er, a coating that contains a lot of copper! The simple fact is that copper is quite effective against organisms, but not THAT effective. You need a really nasty additive like tributyl tin to kill anything, all the time.

If Coppercoat etc is so much better, where's the data? I mean real, sound, comparitive testing.


----------



## deltaten (Oct 10, 2012)

Man! I *luv* the idea of a copper sheathed bottom, just like "Old Ironsides" 
Just thethought of driving alla those nails into the fiberglass spooks me a bit 
Do haft a drill, pot and butyl each nail?


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

Doug,

I think the time was to short to make any real evaluation. We did have our PortaBoat dink in the water for about half as much time and it DID have a lot of crud on it.

One thing that we learned from our original CoppyPoxy was that you do still get the soft (slime) on the bottom and that needs to be removed every so often. IF you let that stay on the boat for a long time you can get hard groth on top of it. It comes off easy, but can be scary to see.

The other thing to do is keep an eye out for black, or very dark areas on the bottom. This could mean an electrical problem that is damaging the copper. Like a short.

We are now in the water in New Orleans and are heading toward Florida till hurricane season. I will be posting another report when we pull this time also.

As I said, when we just put copper powder in epoxy, it DID NOT work! The epoxy in the CopperPoxy and Coppercoat is water based! So, water does get into it and the bottom does not need to be sanded often.

Standard disclmer, I am NOT connected with the companies in any way other than as a user. AND, we are cruisers, not testers! So I do not plan on quartering my bottom any time soon. 

May be some one else will.

Greg



DougSabbag said:


> Hello Greg!
> 
> I greatly appreciate your meticulous efforts at documenting your experiences! Bravo Sir!
> 
> ...


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

MarkSF said:


> I would be interested to know why an epoxy coating that contains a lot of copper would work so much better than a paint like Trinidad SR which is, er, a coating that contains a lot of copper! The simple fact is that copper is quite effective against organisms, but not THAT effective. You need a really nasty additive like tributyl tin to kill anything, all the time.
> 
> If Coppercoat etc is so much better, where's the data? I mean real, sound, comparitive testing.


So, if copper in paint works, shouldn't copper in epoxy work too?


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Delezynski said:


> Doug,
> 
> I think the time was to short to make any real evaluation. We did have our PortaBoat dink in the water for about half as much time and it DID have a lot of crud on it.
> 
> ...


Thank you Greg!


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

deltaten said:


> Man! I *luv* the idea of a copper sheathed bottom, just like "Old Ironsides"
> Just thethought of driving alla those nails into the fiberglass spooks me a bit
> Do haft a drill, pot and butyl each nail?


If I understand correctly, there are many methods of attaching copper sheeting to a fiber glass hull.

Innovations: Copper Hull Sheathing Foils Barnacles


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

Delezynski said:


> Doug,
> 
> We are now in the water in New Orleans and are heading toward Florida till hurricane season. I will be posting another report when we pull this time also.
> 
> Greg


Greg, where are you at in new Orleans? I'm in NOLA East, on the hard at our marina, Lake Catherine marina.

I'll be putting CopperCoat one boat in the next month or so... I figure it's worth a shot. I don't mind diving on my own boat to clean the slime off of it which you will get on any bottom paint. I figured that is just part of maintaining your boat, cleaning the bottom, I like to be drag free(stems from my racing side).

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

I think many people are misunderstanding. A lot of the normal bottom paint contains copper oxide (check the active ingredient list) as the inhibitor. Copper oxide is like copper rust (I KNOW, don't slam me for the simplistic view)

When you have the metallic copper in a base that allows the water to "rust" the copper and turn it to copper oxide, that does the same thing as it does in the paint. It's just that you can load a lot more copper up front than you can the oxide.

Any way, no scientific stuff, just saying it works for us. And as I am very fond of saying, we are each the captain of our own craft, we make our own decisions and are bound to live with them! 

What I do not understand is why it seems like may people who have not tried it are so worried about it not working on MY boat! 

Greg


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

BoatyardBoy said:


> Greg, where are you at in new Orleans? I'm in NOLA East, on the hard at our marina, Lake Catherine marina.
> 
> I'll be putting CopperCoat one boat in the next month or so... I figure it's worth a shot. I don't mind diving on my own boat to clean the slime off of it which you will get on any bottom paint. I figured that is just part of maintaining your boat, cleaning the bottom, I like to be drag free(stems from my racing side).
> 
> Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk


We are at Seabrook off France road. At least for a couple more days before we start heading east. Stop by and say hi if you are in the area.

Greg


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Doug,

Antifouling is actually a multi-billion dollar business and even very small gains in growth reduction and/or increase in interval of reapplication translates to many millions of dollars in fuel and time saved for the big freight companies.

Did you know that there is a peer reviewed scientific journal devoted to nothing else other than marine biofouling? It's $500 per issue if you want to read a copy...

I'm a fan of innovation and often find myself re-inventing the wheel or acting like an iconoclast, but in this arena, there are plenty of people doing the research and testing for you.

Having said that, there still is room for you to do something different. Ivermectin, a prescription pharmaceutical anti-parasitic drug is showing incredible promise in reductions of hard growth when mixed with regular copper paint. And yes, you can buy the stuff on the internet.

You may find this post:Post

From this thread:Antifouling thread

worth reading.

Medsailor

PS Nice to have you back by the way.  Glad we didn't scare you off forever before.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

MedSailor said:


> Doug,
> 
> Antifouling is actually a multi-billion dollar business and even very small gains in growth reduction and/or increase in interval of reapplication translates to many millions of dollars in fuel and time saved for the big freight companies.
> 
> ...


Very interesting information! Thank you ! I am still interested in hearing from any other CopperCoat users..... if there are any?
OR any daring souls who attached copper sheeting!?


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

Good reading also.... Has anyone here used the ultrasonic anti fouling system?

Just did some reading and it seems an expensive solution... just looked at some unit one can buy and for less than a $100 or so it could be tested... parts can be bought on the auction site... 

I figure about 2 units @50 watts or so running at 40 KHz for a boat of say 25-40 feet should be adequate if each transducer is place on port/starboard... I wouldn't mind trying this out sometime... there has been studies this works and there is a company (Clean Boat) already marketing such a device.

So if anyone has done this type of installation it would be nice to get their feedback.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

DougSabbag said:


> So, if copper in paint works, shouldn't copper in epoxy work too?


The copper (oxide) in anti fouling paint is suspended in material that is designed to constantly expose new copper to the surface - at least in ablatives. Epoxy, as posted, needs sanding regularly to expose new copper to the surface. Epoxy is one of the best materials used on boats to prevent water intrusion.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

MarkSF said:


> I would be interested to know why an epoxy coating that contains a lot of copper would work so much better than a paint like Trinidad SR which is, er, a coating that contains a lot of copper! The simple fact is that copper is quite effective against organisms, but not THAT effective. You need a really nasty additive like tributyl tin to kill anything, all the time.
> 
> If Coppercoat etc is so much better, where's the data? I mean real, sound, comparitive testing.


The theory is that it can hold it and release is slowly. While ablative paint releases it quickly and the paint wears off. More like a supper hard hard paint. Normally the "additive" is just to kill the "slime" and not all areas have issues with slime, especially if you are on a long passage as the movement of the water tends to slough it off. The copper keeps the barnicals and other critter growth at bay.

It does seem to have a loyal following. From what I have read is that it seems to work in cold water really well. It is supposed to be very popular in the UK. Not sure if it would work as well in FL or the islands



DougSabbag said:


> Very interesting information! Thank you ! I am still interested in hearing from any other CopperCoat users..... if there are any?
> OR any daring souls who attached copper sheeting!?


I believe that wingNwing had it put on, but I think they may be out cruising, as I have not seen any posts from her in a few months, but I am sure she will be back soon. I know they had issues getting there hull dried out enough to put on the barrier coat, and I believe they peeled the whole hull first. They spent most of the summer living on the boat on the hard waiting for it to dry out.

I don't think you will find any fiberglass boats with sheeting on it.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

I would think its future is limited as all copper based bottom paints have a limited future. Washington State has banned copper bottom paint starting in a few years. California tried and it didn't pass but probably will one day. The rest will probably follow. Because of this the paint companies are producing non-copper bottom paints that by reports are as effective or even better than the copper based paints.

Zincs will have a doubtful future if some get their wishes as well.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

MarkSF said:


> I would be interested to know why an epoxy coating that contains a lot of copper would work so much better than a paint like Trinidad SR which is, er, a coating that contains a lot of copper!


It doesn't, that's the whole point.

Copper-loaded epoxies (like CopperCoat) encapsulate the copper particles in the epoxy and must be sanded on a regular basis (illegal in the water, in California, BTW) to expose fresh copper biocide to the surface. CopperCoat has an extremely low copper leach rate, which is why these coatings are relatively ineffective in regions of moderate to high fouling (like California.) Copper-based modified epoxies and ablative paints have designed-in delivery systems that continuously brings the biocide to the surface of the coating and therefore do not need refreshing by sanding or frequent recoating.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

guitarguy56 said:


> Good reading also.... Has anyone here used the ultrasonic anti fouling system?
> 
> Just did some reading and it seems an expensive solution... just looked at some unit one can buy and for less than a $100 or so it could be tested... parts can be bought on the auction site...
> 
> ...


There are several (if not more) manufacturers currently promoting ultrasonic anti fouling systems. This has been true for decades. Virtually every one of these manufacturers admits that their devices are not replacements for anti fouling paint, but work in conjunction with anti fouling paint. I submit that if ultrasonic anti fouling systems were in any way, shape or form effective (with, or without, anti fouling paint) we would see these systems on every shelf in every West Marine or Defender or local chandlery. But we don't see these systems anywhere. Why? Because they don't work.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

mitiempo said:


> ...the paint companies are producing non-copper bottom paints that by reports are as effective or even better than the copper based paints.


No offense, but if you believe that *any* zinc-based paints are as, or more effective than copper-based paints, you have never used a zinc-based paint.

Zinc paints do not work as well as copper paints, which is part of the reason why we don't see a lot of zinc paints on the market. The paint manufacturers have developed some zinc paints because they are not stupid and see the handwriting on the wall, regarding copper paints. But they are heavily vested in selling copper to you, so they haven't given up that ship yet, nor will they in the near future.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

I wasn't referring to zinc based bottom paints - at least as far as I know. I was referring to paints such as MicronCF. Looking at their data sheets it doesn't mention the contents. Do MicronCF and other non-copper paints all include zinc?


----------



## Puddin'_Tain (Feb 14, 2014)

One thing that almost always gets lost in discussions about copper sheeting vs. antifouling paint is that the old sailors (back when boats were made of wood, and the men who sailed them were almost always half-drunk) didn't sheathe hulls in copper to keep fouling off, they did so to keep Teredo (aka, "ship worms") out of the planking. Teredo are actually a type of bivalve mollusk; a very funny-looking clam, if your will. Copper is a very effective molluscicide, but not nearly as effective against barnacles and algae. The old boys recognized, even way back when, that copper didn't prevent fouling all that well; besides, they had plenty of cheap labor to careen the ship and scrape the bottom when necessary. However, they were REALLY (and quite justifiably) worried about Teredo. Somehow, having the ship go a bit slower wasn't as big a deal as having it fall apart underneath you while at see. Go figure.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

Puddin'_Tain said:


> ..... The old boys recognized, even way back when, that copper didn't prevent fouling all that well; besides, they had plenty of cheap labor to careen the ship and scrape the bottom when necessary. ......


It's a little more complicated than that. For starters, if it were only Teredo you were worried about, *wood* sheathing works just as well as copper (better, actually) and is far cheaper, even back then.

Here's a good write-up:





FWIW, copper sheathing works just fine at discouraging both weed and Teredo (assuming it doesn't get damaged by hitting anything) but is pretty high-maintenance and very high cost and is only suitable for application on copper-fastened timber hulls and, for that use, a tiny break in the copper is all a Teredo needs to get through.

Copper-based painting is sooo much easier..


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

mitiempo said:


> I wasn't referring to zinc based bottom paints - at least as far as I know. I was referring to paints such as MicronCF. Looking at their data sheets it doesn't mention the contents. Do MicronCF and other non-copper paints all include zinc?


Not all non-copper paints contain zinc but Micron CF does.


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

Delezynski said:


> We are at Seabrook off France road. At least for a couple more days before we start heading east. Stop by and say hi if you are in the area.
> 
> Greg


Yea, I know the place.. I'll try to swing by before I go back offshore next week.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## Edboat (Oct 29, 2002)

I am the US Distributor for Coppercoat and would be glad to answer any questions anyone has. 
There is a lot of misinformation on here.

Coppercoat does NOT need to be sanded every year to keep it working. It only needs to be sanded 1 time before the first launch.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Edboat said:


> Coppercoat does NOT need to be sanded every year to keep it working. It only needs to be sanded 1 time before the first launch.


Again I play the Hallberg-Rassy 43 card:










The fouling growth in this image took about a year to accumulate. I would not expect to see this kind of growth on a say, Trinidad bottom in good condition if it hadn't been cleaned for a year. So FWIW, in my experience and in my neck of the woods, the product doesn't perform particulary well .


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

Dear Mr Coppercoat distributor,

If there is misinformation, the way to counter it is with sound information.

I have an open mind, but open to sound data, from scientifically sound testing, as opposed to hearsay. 

Perhaps you could post some links to data from comparative tests. Has Practical Sailor ever included Coppercoat in their testing?


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

Dear Mr. US Distributor for Coppercoat,

I too have an open mind and would very much like to see unbiased reports on the performance of your product. Links please.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

MarkSF said:


> Has Practical Sailor ever included Coppercoat in their testing?


Found on the interwebs. I am not a PS subscriber and therefore cannot vouch for this quote's accuracy or authenticity:

*Coppercoat earned a Poor performance rating at the 12-month mark (PS, October 2010) and a Poor at the 18-month test checkup (PS, March 2011). It didn't make the cut after 24 months, so it was not included in the two-year test results table in the October issue. And while Coppercoat is promoted as a 10-year coating, it does require regular cleaning to expose fresh copper, which is not part of our protocol for the static panel test and could explain its sub-par performance. Some readers have reported good results over multiple seasons from using Coppercoat with semi-monthly cleanings to remove slime.
*

https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03572.html


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

So if we are generous and allow them the claimed 10 year life, it still needs regular cleaning. So let's say diving costs are a wash vs. Pettit Trinidad SR.

Trouble is, my boat always needs hauling after 2 years, anyway. Something always comes up. This time, I found the rudder loose. I get a break on the haulout if I get a coat of bottom paint done.

10 year cost of Pettit Trinidad SR :

$1200 x 5 = $6200. But we can subtract the cost of the break I'm getting on a haulout which would need doing anyway. Call it $5200.

10 year cost of Coppercoat :

If I get Coppercoat, the bottom needs stripping back to gel coat again. This alone costs about $4000.

$4000 for a strip, plus application costs. Say $5200 all in? 

No convinced of the economics, even if it does work.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Doug, at the risk of being called a politically incorrect dinosaur and baby killer...I want TBT and the damned oysters can mutate any way they please.

We used one of the copper products, I'm no longer sure which, -coat or -poxy, some years ago. Worked great the first winter, worthless the next summer despite following the instructions exactly, mixing, applying, etc. as indicated. And that's what I keep hearing online, like most other coatings some of it works in some places for some people, and often much of it just doesn't. Which leaves you with a lot of expensive epoxy on the hull.

Maybe back in the 90's someone got together with 3M in an effort make make self-adhesive copper foil sheets that could pee-n-stick on hulls and conform to them. IIRC they never could get the adhesive problem solved but you might try rattling some cages at 3M, they're very good at passing around phone calls and who knows, they might be challenged into trying again. I suppose you could also have copper plasma sprayed into a hull...wouldn't want to guess at what that might cost though.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

MarkSF said:


> So if we are generous and allow them the claimed 10 year life, it still needs regular cleaning. So let's say diving costs are a wash vs. Pettit Trinidad SR.


I think it could end up that way for sure. I guess up here in the Pacific Northwest, we don't have as bad of a growth problem as elsewhere. My wooden boat went 4-5 years between haulouts using the copper ablative Interlux Bottomkote.

Currently I use (and love) the expensive Petit trinidad. I got 5 years (and could have gotten more) out of the first 2 coat application and the second one is going strong, albet only one year later.

My friend with the copperpoxy bottom has his own dive gear, so his costs are reduced, but he works his butt off in the yard sanding it every couple years. My observations of his success are based on the waters up here, which may not be as harsh as elsewhere.

I think it really could come into its own for very remote, long term cruising where haulout facilities are rare, expensive, or poor quality. It may be especially well suite to catamarans and other boats that can careen easily for sanding.

MedSailor

PS Personally, I want a depleted uranium based paint. I want to see a trail of upside down fish behind my boat wherever I go. HAHAH:hothead


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Med

Interesting that you got so many years with Bottomkote (XXX I assume) - one of the least expensive paints around.

Around here - Victoria - Pettit Horizons is the most popular based on what we sell and has proven to be very good at lasting several years - 3 being quite normal and some reporting longer.

Maybe the ultimate solution is a boat made from Cupro-Nickel.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

mitiempo said:


> Med
> 
> Interesting that you got so many years with Bottomkote (XXX I assume) - one of the least expensive paints around.
> 
> ...


I did add a bottle of Dave's Insanity Sauce to the bottomkote that faithfully kept the wooden boat free of growth for so many years. I had heard of adding cayenne, but hey, if that works, then this stuff is a LOT hotter. Who knows if it helped, but the university of texas did find some promising results with their cayenne experiments...

MedSailor


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

MedSailor said:


> I had heard of adding cayenne, but hey, if that works, then this stuff is a LOT hotter. Who knows if it helped...


It didn't, because the whole hot pepper thing is a myth.



MedSailor said:


> the university of texas did find some promising results with their cayenne experiments...


I call bullsh*t on this. Links?


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

I saw a Bristol Channel Cutter in Port Townsend with copper sheeting using long thin strips. can't say if it worked or not but he has a pretty large blog out there somewhere. You might search Alaska BCC if you are really serious about tracking him down. While on the subject in 25 years of painting hulls I have found West Marine Gold Plus to be without a doubt the best paint on the market. Its about 200 a gallon and one coat will go three easy years here in the PNW.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

barefootnavigator said:


> While on the subject in 25 years of painting hulls I have found West Marine Gold Plus to be without a doubt the best paint on the market.


West Marine paints are simply rebranded products already on the market. If I am not mistaken, West Marine PCA Gold Plus is actually Pettit SR40.


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

You are right but correct me if I'm wrong WM charges 80 less per gallon, or at least on my island they do.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

barefootnavigator said:


> You are right but correct me if I'm wrong WM charges 80 less per gallon, or at least on my island they do.


Well, there is that.


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

Let me ask this, could one buy a less expensive bottom paint, add pounds of copper powder to it and get the same results as say Trinidad Red?


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Captainmeme said:


> Let me ask this, could one buy a less expensive bottom paint, add pounds of copper powder to it and get the same results as say Trinidad Red?


In a word- no. If that worked, there'd be little tubs of copper for sale in every chandlery.


----------



## Puddin'_Tain (Feb 14, 2014)

Captainmeme said:


> Let me ask this, could one buy a less expensive bottom paint, add pounds of copper powder to it and get the same results as say Trinidad Red?


Although metallic copper is NOT the same thing as cuprous oxide (the active ingredient in most bottom paints), it will slowly oxidize to form a cuprous oxide layer on its surface. However, adding metallic copper to paint might well be counter productive, in that paints are formulated will specific ingredients in mind; add a significant amount of copper to a paint and you may just end up with a can of crumby paint that doesn't stick to the hull and/or is a pain to apply and/or doesn't wear very well and/or etc., etc., etc.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Puddin'_Tain said:


> ...add a significant amount of copper to a paint and you may just end up with a can of crumby paint that doesn't stick to the hull and/or is a pain to apply and/or doesn't wear very well and/or etc., etc., etc.


Or doesn't deliver the added biocide (if indeed, a biocide has been actually been added. Who knows, with kitchen sink chemistry) to the coating surface to be leached out into the water. Anti fouling paints are complex matrices of sovents, binders, biocides, co-biocides, pigments etc. You can't just dump stuff into them willy-nilly and expect it to work.


----------



## Puddin'_Tain (Feb 14, 2014)

Fstbttms said:


> Or doesn't deliver the added biocide (if indeed, a biocide has been actually been added. Who knows, with kitchen sink chemistry) to the coating surface to be leached out into the water. Anti fouling paints are complex matrices of sovents, binders, biocides, co-biocides, pigments etc. You can't just dump stuff into them willy-nilly and expect it to work.


Well, adding copper (a known biocide; albeit, in a less soluble form than cuprous oxide) isn't exactly "dump[ing] stuff into them willy-nilly". But increasing a "cheap" antifouling paint's efficacy would probably be on the order of a 50/50 (or worse) chance.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Edboat said:


> I am the US Distributor for Coppercoat and would be glad to answer any questions anyone has.
> There is a lot of misinformation on here.
> 
> Coppercoat does NOT need to be sanded every year to keep it working. It only needs to be sanded 1 time before the first launch.


Hello Ed!

Thank you for joining this conversation!

So, I am wondering.... assuming the Coppercoat works as advertised, why are there so many different results from using it - as we see on this thread?

I want to believe in it enough to install it this year, so please share what the issues are with this product which has kept it from mainstream acceptance?

Thank you,
Doug


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

hellosailor said:


> Doug, at the risk of being called a politically incorrect dinosaur and baby killer...I want TBT and the damned oysters can mutate any way they please.
> 
> We used one of the copper products, I'm no longer sure which, -coat or -poxy, some years ago. Worked great the first winter, worthless the next summer despite following the instructions exactly, mixing, applying, etc. as indicated. And that's what I keep hearing online, like most other coatings some of it works in some places for some people, and often much of it just doesn't. Which leaves you with a lot of expensive epoxy on the hull.
> 
> Maybe back in the 90's someone got together with 3M in an effort make make self-adhesive copper foil sheets that could pee-n-stick on hulls and conform to them. IIRC they never could get the adhesive problem solved but you might try rattling some cages at 3M, they're very good at passing around phone calls and who knows, they might be challenged into trying again. I suppose you could also have copper plasma sprayed into a hull...wouldn't want to guess at what that might cost though.


Hi!

We're moving our boat to Europe next year. And, TBT is out, per their regulations. So, we are searching for the real best thing to do so that we can avoid hauling our CT 56 as much as possible.

When I read through the history of antifouling, the British war ships' copper sheeting enabled them to stay "in service" for years. Shy of copper sheeting, Coppercoat seems to be the modern alternative..... but I am wondering why / how such completely different results are being reported...?!

Besides Coppercoat, I appreciate your advisements to look into the sticky pieces of copper, and will look into that and actual copper sheeting if the Coppercoat isn't the solution.

Never boring.....
Doug


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

DougSabbag said:


> So, I am wondering.... assuming the Coppercoat works as advertised, why are there so many different results from using it - as we see on this thread?


No anti fouling coating is suitable for all regions and all fouling conditions. I suspect if one were to poll those boaters who report good results with Coppercoat, we would find that for the most part, they do their boating in areas of low fouling.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Doug,

In a strange coincidence of circumstances, the skipper of the boat I was telling you about, that I raced on for 10 years or so, with the copper bottom, contacted me out of the blue. I haven't heard from him in at least 2 years. I'll put the text of the email he sent me this morning below.

MedSailor

_Magician racing again

It's been a few years since we raced the Magician due to my work schedule, travels, and the logistics of keeping the bottom clean. Work has tapered off, and I am traveling less and less. Over the years the copper bottom had blistered, spalled, and finally failed making it difficult to keep the boat in racing condition. Last week the magician received a complete new bottom. It is a traditional anti fouling paint, but with a racing finish. It is very fast. I also replaced the broken knot meter, so we are back in business. I have some light maintenance yet to complete, but we will be ready to race this April. The first race is a month away, and we may want to go out for some practice.

I have attached a racing schedule of the races I hope to enter. I will be expanding the crew list, and it would be great to have you back again. Please reply and let me know if you are interested or able to race with me this year or not.

Looking forward to getting the group together!_


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Fstbttms said:


> It didn't, because the whole hot pepper thing is a myth.
> 
> I call bullsh*t on this. Links?


Well I didn't make it up, so no BS, but it is the kind of early science that gets tossed around in the news and lay press before it's been reproduced in several peer-reviewed journals.

John A. Schetz, and Robert F McMahon are the two guys from Uof Texas and the U of North Texas (is there an ocean in north texas) They've filed for a few patents between them.

Monitor: Reducing the barnacle bill | The Economist
Patent US8575230 - Environment-friendly antifoulants for the prevention of biofouling - Google Patents

MedSailor


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

MedSailor said:


> Doug,
> 
> In a strange coincidence of circumstances, the skipper of the boat I was telling you about, that I raced on for 10 years or so, with the copper bottom, contacted me out of the blue. I haven't heard from him in at least 2 years. I'll put the text of the email he sent me this morning below.
> 
> ...


Well MedSailor, this sure doesn't inspire great confidence in Coppercoat!

*But, I really want to hear from the US Distributor - EdBoat - on why this might have occurred....* was it flawed from the initial installation - or what?

Of course, considering your racing friend's obvious resources, it would be hard to imagine he wouldn't have had skilled installers doing the work.

Thank you very much for sharing this experience from your racing friend!

Fair winds!
Doug


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Ed-
Could you comment on whether CopperCoat and CopperPoxy are materially different products, and if so, in what way?


----------



## hopcar (Jul 6, 2013)

I tried a copper loaded epoxy resin type bottom coat (Copper Poxy?) many years ago. It was very similar to CopperCoat. It was a failure as far as I'm concerned. In my opinion, modern bottom paint should keep both slime and hard growth off for at least a year before you need a diver to clean it. It was only about as effective as cheap copper bottom paint and it need cleaning in only six to eight months. When I painted over it I thought at least it'll prevent blisters. Wrong, I had my gel coat ground off about two years ago.

I've been using modern bottom paints with anti-slime ingredients ever since the copper/epoxy failed.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

mitempo- could you expand on your comments about zincs please. Hopefully you were not referring to sacrificial anodes.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"In my opinion, modern bottom paint should keep both slime and hard growth off for at least a year before you need a diver to clean it."

Wait, what's that sound? Barnacles guffawing ?!

Seriously though, from your lips to god's ears, as they say. In the waters of LI Sound, surrounding bays and anchorages, no one can park a boat for one month without coming back to find a beard and wee beasties firmly attached. The only boats that don't grow beards are the ones that get hauled after every race with that nice shiny graphite paint on them.

You can really keep them clean shaven for a year with something??


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

MedSailor said:


> Well I didn't make it up, so no BS, but it is the kind of early science that gets tossed around in the news and lay press before it's been reproduced in several peer-reviewed journals.


OK, I grant you that a patent for a capsaicin-based anti fouling idea exists. I didn't expect that and I appreciate you providing the link. However, the patent describes a coating that is effective specifically against zebra mussles only. That, combined with the fact that no capsaicin-based product has ever been introduced to the market, despite this work having been done seven or more years ago, makes me wonder just how "promising" the University's work really was.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

hopcar said:


> In my opinion, modern bottom paint should keep both slime and hard growth off for at least a year before you need a diver to clean it.


This is an unrealistic expectation and one based apparently on your personal opinion of what constitutes a bottom in need of cleaning. I don't pretend to know what kind of fouling conditions your boat lives in in Florida (and I have heard you make some pretty outrageous claims about how long your bottom stays clean) but out here in the Bay Area, there is no anti fouling paint that I have every come across that can go a year without needing cleaning.

For example, here are two different Trinidad bottoms, both in Alameda, both three months old and both in need of cleaning:


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"OK, I grant you that a patent for a capsaicin-based anti fouling idea exists. "
That a patent exists, doesn't mean the invention *works*. It just means someone paid to apply for it, and another one got rubber-stamped. The USPTO was very embarrassed back in the 1980s(?) when it turned out they issued a patent for the WHEELBARROW to someone, despite wheelbarrows having existed for hundreds of years previously.

Now if some clever soul would only hybridize aquatic weed with cannabis weed, ya mon, that be the end of the bottom cleaning problem yes? <VBG>


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Fstbttms said:


> OK, I grant you that a patent for a capsaicin-based anti fouling idea exists. I didn't expect that and I appreciate you providing the link. However, the patent describes a coating that is effective specifically against zebra mussles only. That, combined with the fact that no capsaicin-based product has ever been introduced to the market, despite this work having been done seven or more years ago, makes me wonder just how "promising" the University's work really was.


You're welcome for the link. Calling BS keeps us all honest. 

I did put the dave's insanity hot sauce in that one batch of paint, and_ I thought that there was a small chance _that it contributed to the longevity of the paint. I was also aware that it likely did absolutely nothing, but I figured, "what's the harm." With my last haul and painting I decided to use pepper spray as a big step up the capesasin scale from the hot sauce, but once it became mildly inconvenient to add it to the paint, I didn't bother. I really didn't have much faith in this idea myself. 

As for the claims that you can't go a year with staying clean???!! Wow, we must be really lucky up here. My paint is 1 year old, almost to the day (Petit trinidad) and I should go photograph the bottom and post it to this thread, it looks great.

I bet the fact that my area is such a low fouling area is why my friend was able to survive as long as he did with the copperpoxy bottom, though he is clearly glad to be rid of it.

Here's a thought experiment. If a can of petit trinadad is 73% copper, and you use 2 gallons on your boat, how does that compare to the quantity of copper powder they give you with the copperpoxy kit? I bet it is a similar quantity to filling 1.5 cans with powdered copper, but supposed to be stretched over a lifetime.... How could that possibly work?

MedSailor


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

MedSailor said:


> Here's a thought experiment. If a can of petit trinadad is 73% copper, and you use 2 gallons on your boat, how does that compare to the quantity of copper powder they give you with the copperpoxy kit? I bet it is a similar quantity to filling 1.5 cans with powdered copper, but supposed to be stretched over a lifetime.... How could that possibly work?


The reason is that a modified epoxy paint like Trinidad is designed to leach its copper out continuously until it is all gone. It has a relatively high leach rate, which is why so much copper will be used up in 2-3 years or so. Coppercoat is a different type of anti fouling- it is a copper-loaded epoxy. It is not even technically "paint." It releases so little copper into the water that the manufacturer used to claim it was non-toxic (although they seem to have backed away from that position.) So the copper load this product carries can last ten years (apparently.)


----------



## P35juniper (Feb 11, 2010)

I recall reading about a boat made of copper/nickel hull '60s-'70s time frame, if the boat was moving i think about 4 knots it would stay clean if sitting growth would start.


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

P35juniper said:


> I recall reading about a boat made of copper/nickel hull '60s-'70s time frame, if the boat was moving i think about 4 knots it would stay clean if sitting growth would start.


I think think that is with any paint.. Which is why I think there are so many mixed reviews of CopperCoat. I find that most of the bad forum reviews of CopperCoat are from people who either 1.dont sail their boat often, 2 are tied up in a marina or 3 have unrealistic expectations for CopperCoat. Any antifouling paint will allow growth on the bottom if the boat just sits there, especially if you are in a marina next to the dilapidated and abandoned floating reef in the next slip. Most bottom paints work best when the boat is moving, especially ablative paints which work like soap and wear off over time. Most of the "growth" could probably be wiped off the paint because the antifouling paint keeps the barnacles from adhering well and would probably come off after a nice sail.

On the expectations, what constitutes "failure" of a bottom paint? Slime? Barnacles/mussels? From my experience slime will stick to anything, even creosote pilings. If you expect a paint to stay like it was just painted and launched yesterday after a year then I think you will never find a paint that does this.

Also, from what I have gathered, the "failed" epoxy copper loaded paints have usually not been CopperCoat, but some other brand or backyard concoction. I don't have the stuff but I am going with it in a couple months for the above reasons. There is a reason a global company hasn't tanked like the other brands have. Because their product probably does work? I mean they couldn't get by with just a few people who don't have Internet that read the "mixed" reviews. I don't have the expectation that CopperCoat will keep my bottom slime or barnacle free for 10 years without any light upkeep. I fully intend to scrub my boat regularly because I like to actually sail and intend on doing it.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## hopcar (Jul 6, 2013)

'This is an unrealistic expectation and one based apparently on your personal opinion of what constitutes a bottom in need of cleaning. I don't pretend to know what kind of fouling conditions your boat lives in in Florida (and I have heard you make some pretty outrageous claims about how long your bottom stays clean) but out here in the Bay Area, there is no anti fouling paint that I have every come across that can go a year without needing cleaning.
For example, here are two different Trinidad bottoms, both in Alameda, both three months old and both in need of cleaning:"

I agree that both those bottoms need cleaning. They wouldn't look like that in South Florida for over a year with properly applied Trinidad SR. In fact Pettit would probably replace the paint if it failed that badly in three months.

You say I make outrageous claims about the life of bottom paint, sounds like you're calling me a liar, yet you are the one with a financial incentive to exaggerate the need for bottom cleaning.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

outbound said:


> mitempo- could you expand on your comments about zincs please. Hopefully you were not referring to sacrificial anodes.


Yes, I was. Some consider zinc a dangerous element to be dissolving in our harbors. Manufacturers are switching to aluminum anodes in some cases - for example the factory approved anode for a Yamaha (aluminum) outboard is aluminum. Canada Metal, one of the largest manufacturers of anodes for recreational vessels is producing more aluminum anodes as well as stating that they perform better in salt water.

Here is a link to the dangers of zinc: Zinc Fact Sheet

The pic below is from this site Martyr Anodes | The World's Premium Marine Anodes



I see zinc anodes going the way copper anti fouling paint will be in the future - banned in Washington State and it probably will be in California in the near future. Not that either product is all that bad, but because environmentalists are getting louder voices than in the past. I'm not one of them by the way.

One interesting point - in Washington State while copper based bottom paints are banned starting in a few years commercial vessels are exempted.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

hopcar said:


> I agree that both those bottoms need cleaning. They wouldn't look like that in South Florida for over a year with properly applied Trinidad SR. In fact Pettit would probably replace the paint if it failed that badly in three months.


These paints have not failed. They are working just fine and this is typical fouling for three months here. You are assuming that the fouling conditions where you live are the fouling conditions that should be expected where I live.


----------



## hopcar (Jul 6, 2013)

It seems to me that you're the one who assumes that fouling conditions where I am are the same as where you are. You're the one who said that I make "outrageous claims" yet you admit that you have no idea what the conditions are here.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

hopcar said:


> It seems to me that you're the one who assumes that fouling conditions where I am are the same as where you are. You're the one who said that I make "outrageous claims" yet you admit that you have no idea what the conditions are here.


Below is a statement you made. Pretty outrageous coming from anybody who keeps a boat in a saltwater environment year round in this country. Doubly so when that statement comes from a marine industry professional.



HopCar said:


> The diver is doing the work of the paint so you don't need paint. A friend of mine left his boat in the water for ten years and just let the diver maintain the bottom.


Bottom Paint - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


----------



## harmonic (Sep 10, 2013)

I put a coppercoat system on a 45 foot power cat 3 years ago and it works well not much slime for the first 6 months then a small layer appeared I scrubbed it off and now it grows a light layer of slime every 3 months which is easily wiped off,when it appears to stop wprking I will give it a light sand with some very fine wet and dry sandpaper overall I am very pleased with it.The boat gets a lot of use which I am sure is helpfull in keeping the weed growth to a minimum.My steel yacht with a hard antifoul by comparison needs hauling and painting every 18 months.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Many valid points are being raised here.... but, as much as I hate to, can we get back on track, i.e., CopperCoat?

Edboat - where are you!? Would you please return with some comments about your product, Sir?


----------



## hopcar (Jul 6, 2013)

If you're going to quote me, quote the whole statement. 
Following is what I said and it is the truth. I don't know why you have a problem with it. You've admitted you are ignorant of conditions in my area.

"I bet you have a diver clean the bottom pretty often. The diver is doing the work of the paint so you don't need paint. If you put on some high quality bottom paint, you shouldn't need the diver for a year or more. A friend of mine left his boat in the water for ten years and just let the diver maintain the bottom."

I suspect that you don't like my statement that divers are not need for the first year of a quality bottom paints life. They may be needed where you are but not where I am. 

I do appreciate you arguing the need for bottom paint since some of my income comes from selling it.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

harmonic said:


> I put a coppercoat system on a 45 foot power cat 3 years ago and it works well not much slime for the first 6 months then a small layer appeared I scrubbed it off and now it grows a light layer of slime every 3 months which is easily wiped off,when it appears to stop wprking I will give it a light sand with some very fine wet and dry sandpaper overall I am very pleased with it.The boat gets a lot of use which I am sure is helpfull in keeping the weed growth to a minimum.My steel yacht with a hard antifoul by comparison needs hauling and painting every 18 months.


WOW, this is great information! In the same general area, you have 2 boats, each with different antifouling "systems".
Your CopperCoat results sound quite different from the other results.

Thank you!


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

harmonic said:


> ...when it appears to stop wprking I will give it a light sand with some very fine wet and dry sandpaper...


Not exactly what the distributor claimed:



Edboat said:


> Coppercoat does NOT need to be sanded every year to keep it working. It only needs to be sanded 1 time before the first launch.


----------



## Edboat (Oct 29, 2002)

I have been on the road and just able to get back on here are review the questions. I will try to answer as many as I can, if you have a question that I haven't answered please ask again.

Sanding every year? No, when a Coppercoat boat is sanded properly the first time. We have found some customers who haven't sanded the hull properly the first time and
get hard growth; the problem is fixable. The hull just needs to be sanded correctly. This is difficult to do with the boat in the water. I have paid for 3 haulouts for customers who didn't sand enough. We now have a picture of what the correct amount of sanding looks like. I will see if I can get in touch with some of these customers so they can comment here. 

Practical Sailor test. When we were asked to be in the Practical Sailor test we asked if we could provide a test panel and were told they would apply the Coppercoat and FOLLOW ALL of OUR DIRECTIONS. They didn't follow our directions. 

The difference between Coppercoat, Copperpoxy and Copperclad? Copperpoxy was a very resin rich epoxy which was mixed with copper flakes. It was very thick and difficult to apply. Copperpoxy had to be sanded every year, at least. We talk to people at boat shows who have had Copperpoxy and most admit that it was terrible. We have talked to people that loved Copperpoxy, even after having to sand it often. Copperpoxy was also conductive and caused some issues with electrolysis, due to using copper flake (instead of super fine copper powder).
Copperclad was a copper powder in a polyester resin. The product was sprayed in molds by a number of boat builders. We see customers who have had good luck with Copperclad, but now it is wearing thin (15+ years) and want to know if they can coat Coppercoat over the Copperclad, and the answer is yes.
According to Aquarius Marine Coatings, the makers of Coppercoat, there have been 20 different companies who have made a copper in epoxy anti-fouling paint over the past 20or so years. All of those companies are out of business. Coppercoat has been on the market for 23 years.
Different results. First, a lot of the comments about Coppercoat aren't necessarily Coppercoat. Often people lump all copper epoxy coats under the name Coppercoat because it has been around longer than the other coatings and it comes to mind. I can only comment on the 5 years experience I have selling Coppercoat. Coppercoat requires that you clean it from time to time, we tell our customer that all the time. The cleaning varies by location. Boats in New England don't require as much cleaning on the whole as boats in the Caribbean or a hot harbor in Florida. Most of our customers tell us that their boats don't require any more cleaning than the other coatings where they are located. 
Medsailor, can you confirm that "Magician" did in fact have Coppercoat on the bottom and not another copper/epoxy coating. Where was "Magician" located?
Coppercoat has only been available in the US for 5 (2009) years. If you hear of a boat that was coated with a copper & epoxy coating in the US earlier than that, it was probably something else. However, there are many boats in the US who had Coppercoat applied elsewhere 6-20 years ago and the owners are very happy.
Why isn't everyone using Coppercoat? There are several reasons that more people are not using Coppercoat. The first is that Coppercoat is a little more expensive than other anti-fouling paints. Another reason is that in order to apply Coppercoat you must first remove the old anti-fouling paint. You do not need to remove old barrier coat as some people think. You only need to remove the old anti-fouling paint and that adds an additional expense to the application process. Another reason is that a LOT of boatyards don't want you to use Coppercoat. They want you to come back every couple of years for a new bottom job. We have had boatyard owners tell us: "Why should I put your product on a boat? It is going to cost me business down the road". We have also been told "I Love barnacles, they make me money". 
I can't speak for all of the boats in the world that have had Coppercoat applied, but all of the boats we have done here in the states we have worked very hard to make sure that they were done correctly. We have been fighting all of the negative comments about some of the other copper/epoxy coats that have been out there and failed.
The picture that Fastbottoms has posted is a boat that we can find no record of having bought Coppercoat here in the states. It is possible that he may have Coppercoat, but it wasn't bought here in the US.
When ever a Coppercoat customer here in the states has a problem I here about it. In every instance when I have been contacted I have tried to help the customer sort out the issues. Over 60% of our customers are "do it yourself" customers and we offer a lot of support to them to make sure that Coppercoat works.
Coppercoat is not for everyone. It is more expensive that most other coatings, but our customers feel that it is well worth the price over the life of the coating. A lot of our customers are cruisers and plan to sail off and not have to worry about trying to find a yard in BFE to do a bottom job. 
We call it a 10 year bottom paint because that is when most of our customer began to do the first touch ups on the bottoms. We have found 2 boats this year that have had Coppercoat on for 20 years with one touch up.
If there are more questions please post them or send me a PM. I am happy to answer any questions, I'm not on here often but will get back in a day or so.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Edboat said:


> ...
> 
> Practical Sailor test. When we were asked to be in the Practical Sailor test we asked if we could provide a test panel and were told they would apply the Coppercoat and FOLLOW ALL of OUR DIRECTIONS. They didn't follow our directions.


Can you tell us (a) what the instructions are for applying Coopercoat and (b) what PS did wrong?


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

Edboat said:


> In every instance when I have been contacted I have tried to help the customer sort out the issues. Over 60% of our customers are "do it yourself" customers and we offer a lot of support to them to make sure that Coppercoat works.


I/we can't speak for ALL users, but we DID get fast service when we applied it! The yard we had apply it contacted and we did with one small issue we had and got good a reply, fast.

Greg


----------



## kellysails (Nov 1, 2008)

I have had Copper Coat on my boat for almost two years now. (really too early to tell though) But FWIW, it has been fantastic. I have a diver clean the slime off every four months or so. I had to have a recent haul out for a warranty issue, the guys at the yard were astounded on what they saw. The bottom was brand spanking clean. The project manager thought that they must have done a power wash when it was hauled, he found out that no power wash was done, the bottom was clean and fast. I love the stuff.

I knew about the Washington laws when I had it put on. We all thought that Washington was going to go the route of California to allow copper paint as long as it was not ablative based. Not so. So just another reason to move our boat to warmer climes. That was the plan anyway when we bought the boat, now our lovely state has given us more motivation. 

/RANTON
Oh, and BTW, luxury yachts (+65 foot) and commercial boats are exempt from the law. The thought being luxury yachts move their boats to warmer weather every winter anyway so they are not REALLY in the Puget Sound that much anyway. (this is an actual documented reason for the exemption, seriously) And commercial ventures fund all the lobbyists so why would the politicians cut their own throat. I could go on an on about this, but I'm done, sorry for the RANT. There is also good stuff why the PNW boating industry association drove this law also, leave that one for latter. 
/RANTOFF


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

kellysails said:


> We all thought that Washington was going to go the route of California to allow copper paint as long as it was not ablative based. Not so.


Just in the interest of accuracy, this not the route California took. Currently there are no anti fouling paint restrictions (other than regional VOC regulations) anywhere in the state. If it's legally for sale, you can use it. The Port of San Diego has forbidden professional hull divers from creating a "plume" while cleaning boat bottoms, but that is not the same as banning ablative paints. In fact, boat owners in San Diego can dive their own boats, scrub away at an ablative paint and create as much of a plume as they want.


----------



## kellysails (Nov 1, 2008)

Thanks for the clarification, my bad. The subject matter just makes my head spin off.



Fstbttms said:


> Just in the interest of accuracy, this not the route California took. Currently there are no anti fouling paint restrictions (other than regional VOC regulations) anywhere in the state. If it's legally for sale, you can use it. The Port of San Diego has forbidden professional hull divers from creating a "plume" while cleaning boat bottoms, but that is not the same as banning ablative paints. In fact, boat owners in San Diego can dive their own boats, scrub away at an ablative paint and create as much of a plume as they want.


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

Edboat said:


> Sanding every year? No, when a Coppercoat boat is sanded properly the first time. We have found some customers who haven't sanded the hull properly the first time and get hard growth; the problem is fixable. The hull just needs to be sanded correctly. This is difficult to do with the boat in the water. I have paid for 3 haulouts for customers who didn't sand enough. We now have a picture of what the correct amount of sanding looks like. I will see if I can get in touch with some of these customers so they can comment here.
> 
> Practical Sailor test. When we were asked to be in the Practical Sailor test we asked if we could provide a test panel and were told they would apply the Coppercoat and FOLLOW ALL of OUR DIRECTIONS. They didn't follow our directions.
> 
> ...


Ed,

So, we will be in Fort Lauderdale next fall, and want to do the CopperCoat installation to our CT 56 before being transported to Europe in the spring of 2015.

Previously in Fort Lauderdale, I have had our work done at Playboy Boat yard.
Is this where you would suggest having the Coppercoat done? Do you have any specific installers in FtL? How do I buy the product from you?

It sounds very much like the best long term anti fouling system to install, and considering we are about to go to Europe, for years, we fall into the set of people you described who want the freedom from having to haul in places we are not familiar with. If the worst I might have to do is to annually hire a diver to give it a cleaning, or do that myself, we would be quite pleased.
We're not into racing, so our hull does not have to be race ready, just cruise ready....

Thank you,
Doug
S/V Triumph TriumphCharters . com


----------



## Edboat (Oct 29, 2002)

In response to Mastund, we asked Practical Sailor to properly sand the panel before it went into the water and then the panel would need to be cleaned from time to time depending on the level of fouling. In talking to other paint companies about the Practical Sailor test, based on the way they do the test and the cleaning, splashing a bucket of water over the panel, the test appears to show which coating is the best ablative choice.

To Dougsab, Pm me for FTL information.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Edboat said:


> In response to Mastund, we asked Practical Sailor to properly sand the panel before it went into the water and then the panel would need to be cleaned from time to time depending on the level of fouling. In talking to other paint companies about the Practical Sailor test, based on the way they do the test and the cleaning, splashing a bucket of water over the panel, the test appears to show which coating is the best ablative choice.
> 
> To Dougsab, Pm me for FTL information.


You don't have to talk to other paint companies. PS publishes their test procedures, and indeed it involves splashing water over the panels occasionally, to simulate moving the boat. Other than that the panels are just hanging in the water until they are evaluated, just like a boat sitting in a marina or on a mooring.

So you say your product needs regular cleaning "depending on the level of fouling."

That seems to set the bar pretty low. _Any_ product will be fine if you clean the bottom once it gets fouled.

Including no paint at all


----------



## DougSabbag (Aug 3, 2011)

FWIW to everyone, I will be utilizing the services of EdBoat in Fort Lauderdale next fall to apply the Coppercoat system on our 1986 Tai Chiao CT 56. I will make sure all the advisements / instructions are followed religiously. 

Then, I will post to Sailnet the results obtained over the ensuing years as we sit in Fort Lauderdale for a few months, doing a little cruising, and then as we extensively cruise in Europe with no specific plans of returning to America. 

At this point, I am optimistic that we will be pleased with the performance enough to spend the money to do this. I am inspired, thus the optimism, because I have never found any antifouling system, of ablative or not, paint, to perform all that well.

It should be very interesting.
Sincerely,
Doug


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

DougSabbag said:


> I have never found any antifouling system, of ablative or not, paint, to perform all that well.


What kind of performance do you expect from an anti fouling paint that you have not been getting?


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> So you say your product needs regular cleaning "depending on the level of fouling."
> 
> That seems to set the bar pretty low. _Any_ product will be fine if you clean the bottom once it gets fouled.
> 
> Including no paint at all


Actually not really. As FastBottoms names it, cleaning the bottom of a boat that is anti-fouled with an ablative paint result in "pluming". That isn't the surrounding water acting in sympathy with the boat - it is paint coming off. Clean that every few months and soon enough it's all gone. With Coppercoat you can clean as often as you wish - it doesn't wash off.

FWIW, I have a close friend who bought a brand new Beneteu and decided on Coppercoat as the first treatment. As with other posts, it's early days, the boat is now just two years old. But I can tell you it still looks pristinely clean and when the boat was hauled for it's 12 month warranty inspection, a quick wipe with a sponge and it was literally "brand new".

Now with the best will in the world, my boat, no matter what anti-foul I use, is never going to "wipe clean" after a year in the water.

The down side of Coppercoat for me is that on an older boat, the bottom has to be completely denuded of any trace of anti-foul before the Coppercoat goes on. That for me is a problem because the only way to guarantee that is to sand the hull back to the gelcoat. This is in my view a quick path to osmosis and my boat is absolutely clear of that so I ain't going there.

The benefit of an anti-foul that wipes clean is massive when you're cruising in an area where painting the bottom is near impossible (South Pacific). So I may go the Coppercoat route anyway and see where it takes us.

The Halberg Rassy that FastBottoms reports as having had Coppercoat and now has a beard (post #3) - there has to be something else wrong because even with just standard anti-foul on my boat it doesn't get anywhere NEAR that level of fouling even after three years. Maybe that coating hasn't been cleaned for many years?


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Omatako said:


> Maybe that coating hasn't been cleaned for many years?


That's about a year's worth of growth. We had cleaned it the year before, as well.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"the bottom has to be completely denuded of any trace of anti-foul before the Coppercoat goes on. That for me is a problem because the only way to guarantee that is to sand the hull back to the gelcoat. "

Sand? Why, are you in a third-world backwater?

Here in the Colonies, there is bead blasting, soda blasting, and dry ice (pulverized) blasting. Many kinds of media blasting that should be able to remove all kinds of paints, except perhaps epoxy or barrier coats, without damaging the gelcoat.

The dry ice blasting is especially nice in that the "media" evaporates and goes away, leaving less to dispose of. Sanding? No, that's just SO 1850's. (G)


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Omatako said:


> ...there has to be something else wrong because even with just standard anti-foul on my boat it doesn't get anywhere NEAR that level of fouling even after three years.


I don't believe the picture I posted illustrates a product that has failed. I believe it illustrates a product that is unsuitable for these particular fouling conditions. Coppercoat may work very well in some places and under some circumstances. That does not mean it will work well in *all *places and under *all* circumstances. No anti fouling coating will, IMHO.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

hellosailor said:


> Sand? Why, are you in a third-world backwater?
> 
> Here in the Colonies, there is bead blasting, soda blasting, and dry ice (pulverized) blasting. Many kinds of media blasting that should be able to remove all kinds of paints, except perhaps epoxy or barrier coats, without damaging the gelcoat.(G)


Actually I'd venture to suggest that Auckland is far more advanced in boat stuff than where you live. Could be wrong but don't think so.

The thing is the remedies you suggest all cost a lot of money and I have labour for free so I sand. As I have said many times on this board, I can only afford my boat because I do everything myself


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

yeah and what 90 percent of the worlds boat yards, still sands? man


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Edboat said:


> Medsailor, can you confirm that "Magician" did in fact have Coppercoat on the bottom and not another copper/epoxy coating. Where was "Magician" located?
> Coppercoat has only been available in the US for 5 (2009) years. If you hear of a boat that was coated with a copper & epoxy coating in the US earlier than that, it was probably something else. However, there are many boats in the US who had Coppercoat applied elsewhere 6-20 years ago and the owners are very happy.


Edboat,

Thanks for returning to answer our questions. I have known the owner of Magician for over 10 years, and he has had his copper epoxy bottom on the boat for more than 10 years. I have no reason to suspect (am pretty sure) that he did not go overseas to have it applied, so it looks like his bottom is likely not CopperCoat. I'll ask him what it was next time I see him.

Ed, are you willing to talk prices in general terms for our education? What would application, including all parts and yard labor cost (ballpark) for a 25, 30, and 40ft boat sailboat of moderate displacement?

MedSailor


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Doug, there is another route, if you want to try it. I had heard rumors for many years of a small military surplus store outside of Port Townsend WA that has a supply of US Navy surplus submarine paint. 

Now that's gotta be the good stuff right? In the interests of national security, I'm sure that the US Navy is exempt from environmental regulations and probably puts all kinds of good stuff in the paint. 

Well I finally found and set foot in the fabled shop a couple days ago. The cans of paint were there, but unfortunately the listed regular sounding ingredients like 64% copper oxide, what looked like a slime additive and are purportedly an ablative paint. 

What I was imagining was a rusty yellow 55gallon drum with all kinds of hazard markings on it and paint that was laced with depleted uranium, ground up space shuttle tiles, micro vials of small-pox virus, alien body parts and stuff like that. It looked a lot like regular paint....

Still, it might have something fun and classified in it. Perhaps the secret ingredient works by giving the barnacles cancer. That would be fun.  Anyway, it's there and it's $340/5 gallons which seems pretty cheap for what I assume is a good quality paint. 

MedSailor


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

MedSailor said:


> Now that's gotta be the good stuff right? In the interests of national security, I'm sure that the US Navy is exempt from environmental regulations and probably puts all kinds of good stuff in the paint.


It is a common misconception that since the Navy is exempt from U.S. environmental regulations concerning anti fouling paint, that they use special paints that the rest of us cannot. The reality is that the U.S. Navy uses the same anti fouling paints that commercial shipping does. Further, the Navy is, in fact, on the forefront of developing non-copper and non-metal anti fouling coatings.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Omatako?
"The thing is the remedies you suggest all cost a lot of money and I have labour for free so I sand. "
Yes, and when your abrasive sanding cuts into the gelcoat, what will a new gelcoat cost you? Way way more than media blasting, which is pretty inexpensive in the US. In fact, good sandpaper isn't cheap here either. Perhaps you are making your own, and you've got a safecracker's touch so you can actually sand ALL the paint off, without cutting into the gelcoat at all ? 

And the value of your time, and playing with all the toxic paint dust, that's free too, right?

TANSTAAFL.

Remember, the question was removing ALL the paint, and leaving a pristine gelcoat surface, without damaging the gel coat. Not just removing some of the paint some of the time.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

hellosailor said:


> Yes, and when your abrasive sanding cuts into the gelcoat, what will a new gelcoat cost you? Way way more than media blasting, which is pretty inexpensive in the US. In fact, good sandpaper isn't cheap here either. Perhaps you are making your own, and you've got a safecracker's touch so you can actually sand ALL the paint off, without cutting into the gelcoat at all ?


These are the reasons for my absolute reluctance to do the job. Perhaps that thought never came through in my earlier post.



hellosailor said:


> And the value of your time . . . .


I haven't been able to find a meaningful method to invoice myself yet. My time applied to my own projects has always been free. It costs me nothing.



hellosailor said:


> . . . . and playing with all the toxic paint dust, that's free too, right?


I never dry-sand anything and have more than once wet-flatted my boat completely for a new anti-foul application with just one sheet of paper. You can't do that when dry-sanding. Actually, unless you completely enclose your boat, dry sanding is not permitted in any boatyard in NZ that I know of.

(Edit) Just an additional thought - how does the media blaster person know when he has reached gel-coat and is about to to remove some of it?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"I haven't been able to find a meaningful method to invoice myself yet"
I figure it this way. When our dear Mr. Nixon dropped the speed limits to 55...sure, it saved gas, but it turned out that even if there was only one person in the car, and even if that one person only made minimum wage, it was cheaper to work OT and just buy the *ing gas than to save it, and lose that many more hours from your life.

Whatever you get paid, or can get paid, sets a _minimum _value on your time. If I'm doing something as a hobby and because I enjoy doing it, that's recreation and I don't invoice myself. But if I can go work in a burger place for $10 an hour and it takes me two days to do a job, that's a $160 job, minimum.

And I figure if I have to consume my vacation time, or lose family time which can never be replaced...that time's got to be worth more.

I change my own oil because I don't trust the numbnuts who usually get paid to do that wrong, not necessarily because it saves money but because a stripped drain plug or an oil leak would cost way more than the value of my time.

Sanding? Dirty job, tiring job, I don't want that crap in my lungs or eyes AND most yards don't want you to be putting a hazmat mess in the air. Media blasting? Can take a two day long job and "take fixee" done before lunch. Better, faster, cleaner. You can always buy the equipment if you don't want to pay someone else, an air compressor has many uses.

How does the blaster guy know when to stop? Well, first off, if he's any good the media he's using is SOFTER THAN THE GEL COAT AND CANNOT DAMAGE IT. He can blast away at the gelcoat all day without damaging it. That's the BIG difference. It is _impossible _to damage the gelcoat if he choses the right media.

So all he needs to do is clean until he sees gelcoat, then move on.

I kinda like the idea of "this simply CAN'T DO DAMAGE" as opposed to "really, I'll be gentle with the sandpaper."

Corn cob media, walnut shell media, different grades of sand, carborundum, baking soda, glass microballoons, crushed dry ice...they've got a HUGE array of choices.

And if all else fails? Blast off the bulk of the paint, leave the last layer on the gelcoat, and use a chemical paste stripper on that. Again, if it simply CAN'T damage the gelcoat...isn't that worth something too?


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

hellosailor said:


> "I haven't been able to find a meaningful method to invoice myself yet"
> I figure it this way. When our dear Mr. Nixon dropped the speed limits to 55...sure, it saved gas, but it turned out that even if there was only one person in the car, and even if that one person only made minimum wage, it was cheaper to work OT and just buy the *ing gas than to save it, and lose that many more hours from your life.
> 
> Whatever you get paid, or can get paid, sets a _minimum _value on your time. If I'm doing something as a hobby and because I enjoy doing it, that's recreation and I don't invoice myself. But if I can go work in a burger place for $10 an hour and it takes me two days to do a job, that's a $160 job, minimum.
> ...


Yea. Do realize media blasting puts the same amount of dust in the air as sanding if not more? Not only are you blasting off the old paint in fine and coarse particulates but depending on the media, let's say sand, you are then putting silicate dust into the air which is toxic. Enter hazmat suit and my full face mask. And unless you have a tent surrounding you boat, every boat within the area will be covered in all of this dust and media. But I will be honest, never heard of the dry ice, no blast media left over but I can't imagine how much that would cost to blast a boat. Dry ice isn't cheap.

Also, if you use a orbital sander correctly it will smooth your bottom out and knock down any high spots and premature blistering will show up(that you should address, if at minimum poke a hole in to allow to weep and dry). Media blasting won't do this. As far as taking gelcoat off in areas with a sander, that's not a big deal. Modern barrier coat epoxies are much more resistant to osmosis than your old and porous gelcoat. If your spending you time (or whoever your payings time) and money on a decent bottom job, you'll put a barrier coat on if your smart and prudent.

And for chemical stripper, you just talked about chemicals in your lungs and you're talking about a chemical stripper?! Those are some of the most toxic and nasty things you could use, they have to be because they strip paint that isn't supposed to come off. Enter more hazmat, gloves specifically for that chemical, mask WITH organic filter, eye protection, etc.

And if the blaster or you don't know what your doing then, you simply CAN do damage. You get that media moving too fast it will tear whatever you point at it up. For example, Pine straw goes into trees during hurricanes...

And have you ever priced sand blasting equipment? It's not cheap, neither is the media.. And a compressor big enough to blast for longer than 30 secs to a minute is a compressor that does probably have many uses but not for a average guy. It's just too large, you need volume and pressure to do it right and timely.

Blasting isn't a roses and unicorn dust like you think it is.. Just giving my side of the topic.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

I'm with Doug on this, I'll be applying CopperCoat on my boat in the next month or so at our yard so I too will post the specifics and details of the job. Cost, time, prep. Maybe I too can get Ed to come to our yard and oversee things? Ed? 

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"Yea. Do realize media blasting puts the same amount of dust in the air as sanding if not more? ... And unless you have a tent surrounding you boat,"
Sure, there's dust. Whether it is more or less, I'm not so sure. But if you can do the job in 1/2 day instead of 2-3 days, being cooped up in the tent either way, with a much better chance of something blowing away...And what boatyard task doesn't have to be timed between "Oh damn, it's going to rain, now this will take me all week" or some other interruption? I'd opt for the one-day option.

"Dry ice isn't cheap."
I suspect it is way cheaper in bulk than it is at the supermarket ($1/pound, ouch!) but remember, every pound of media that you don't use is a pound less hazmat disposal fee you need to pay, as well.

"Also, if you use a orbital sander correctly it will" still make your arms ache after two days.<G> Whether you need to smooth out the gelcoat, and whether you need the added time and expense of applying a barrier coat, are something else again. With an epoxy bottom paint, a barrier coat shouldn't be necessary since the epoxy IS the barrier, and the epoxy coat can be faired, leaving the gelcoat intact and thicker.

"And for chemical stripper, you just talked about chemicals in your lungs and you're talking about a chemical stripper?!"
That's right, citrus-based strippers are actually very similar to turpentine (the xmas trees' equivalent to citrus oils) and not good for you. Everything is a relative evil. Citrus solvents are chemical strippers, but they're way better for you than breathing in, say, MEK. Which may be what you're thinking of.

"And if the blaster or you don't know what your doing then, you simply CAN do damage."
Same thing with sandpaper. this ain't pine straw, ain't hurricanes, and if you don't know how to use it, you can still electrocute yourself by taking a radio into the bathtub. Caveat Nimrod.

"And have you ever priced sand blasting equipment? It's not cheap, neither is the media.. "
Cheap is relative. What I'd buy if I owned a body shop, isn't what I'd buy for home use. And you don't have to buy it, you can rent a rig by the day, if you don't want to hire out for the job.

"Blasting isn't a roses and unicorn dust like you think it is.. Just giving my side of the topic. "

My local Chinese pharmacy sells unicorn dust, and I happen to know it is totally worthless for removing bottom paint. On the other hand, it can be used to charm young vixens and delude them into doing all the hand work for you.

But as to media blasting? It makes a long tiring dirty job into a short job. And that's why most of us use an electric drill instead of a brace and bit. Although I've still got two Yankee Drivers for the quickies. (G)


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

I finished my copper epoxy antifouling last Wed. It's not CopperCoat, it's a copper powder mixed with MAS epoxy and applied in batches. I still need to paint under the stands and keel, the burnish it with some 280 or 320 grit paper or a nice scotch pad.

Here is some pictures during the process





































And this is finished product after tape removal.










Here is a short video of us mixing the copper powder into the epoxy


__
http://instagr.am/p/sNeQAWKqPC/


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

BoatyardBoy, got to admit I like that color. How many coats? Where did you get the product? How long between coats? Please provide additional details. Hope this works out well for you.


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

Captainmeme said:


> BoatyardBoy, got to admit I like that color. How many coats? Where did you get the product? How long between coats? Please provide additional details. Hope this works out well for you.


Thanks, it definitely looks pretty with those colors. The bottom will eventually turn a light green patina like a old penny.

It's about UT two to three coats, and on the waterline, bow, keel, rudder/skeg, and strut it's 4 costs. You can get MAS clear epoxy from Donovan marine, I think West Marine as well. And probably defender.

Here is the product:
http://www.masepoxies.com/2-to-1-non-blushing-slow

http://www.masepoxies.com/2-to-1-non-blushing-lv-resin

Time between coats, usually 10-15 mins. When you can touch the paint without getting it on your fingers, and it just leaves your prints, you are good to go. So similar to barrier coat epoxy.

I will paint under the stands with barrier coat and the copper paint Mon and Tues then burnish the bottom with 280 or some scotch type pad.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Captainmeme said:


> Where did you get the product?


It's not a "product", it's a kitchen sink concoction that BoatyardBoy is apparently hoping will work much as copper-loaded epoxies like Copperpoxy claim to.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Boatyard Boy:

Just curious. Did you paint a panel and soak it for a year or so first, to see if it worked before taking on such a project? 

Given that it is not just "slappin' on another coat" I find it hard to imagine that MANY sailors have not done this experiment first. Heck, I've done that at my own dock with conventional paints, just for my own satisfaction. Kinna like what Practical Sailor does, except location specific and on a smaller scale.


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

Fstbttms said:


> It's not a "product", it's a kitchen sick concoction that BoatyardBoy is apparently hoping will work much as copper-loaded epoxies like Copperpoxy claim to.


Thanks for the baited comment, I'm not hoping anything. It was free, and I understand any bottom paint requires maintenance and scrubbing. The only difference is I won't have to picky 47' boat up every 2-5 years to redo a typical bottom paint. Your arguments are always mute, please keep it to yourself. I understand where you are coming from but I will let you know my results as the years go by.



pdqaltair said:


> Boatyard Boy:
> 
> Just curious. Did you paint a panel and soak it for a year or so first, to see if it worked before taking on such a project?
> 
> Given that it is not just "slappin' on another coat" I find it hard to imagine that MANY sailors have not done this experiment first. Heck, I've done that at my own dock with conventional paints, just for my own satisfaction. Kinna like what Practical Sailor does, except location specific and on a smaller scale.


Nope, the guys that helped me apply it have done this same thing with 3 other boats and one was picked up at our yard last year and only needed a pressure wash. It was almost 10 years old and still looked great. That works for me. It's first hand experience not 3rd.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Not a baited comment, simply the truth. You read my post on the other forum. I'm just relaying what I know from years of in-water experience with copper-loaded epoxies.

Maybe it'll work great for you. I hope it does. I just know I wouldn't wish it on an enemy.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Keep us posted Boy! I commend you for giving it a go and trying something new. I have a feeling that you're educated enough about what's going on that if it doesn't work out, you will have known what you were getting into, and you have the resources to fix it if it needs to come off later.

If it does work, which I hope it does, then it'll be great! Whichever way it goes, we can all learn from your experimentation, so please post results in the coming years.

MedSailor


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

" and you have the resources to fix it if it needs to come off later"

OK, what does one need to do to apply conventional bottom paint over what boat yard boy
has done if necessary?


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

good job boatyard

boat is looking great....keep us updated for sure...


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Captainmeme said:


> " and you have the resources to fix it if it needs to come off later"
> 
> OK, what does one need to do to apply conventional bottom paint over what boat yard boy
> has done if necessary?


A good question. The paint companies have compatibility charts, and they're likely there for a reason. I don't know the details of why one paint is compatible or not but I assume there could be issues lurking in this area... On the other hand, perhaps you just paint some ablative over it and call it good. I don't know.

MedSailor


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

MedSailor said:


> A good question. The paint companies have compatibility charts, and they're likely there for a reason. I don't know the details of why one paint is compatible or not but I assume there could be issues lurking in this area... On the other hand, perhaps you just paint some ablative over it and call it good. I don't know.


The CopperCoat web site specifically indicates that their product cannot be used over *any* anti fouling paint. The hull must be stripped back to gel coat before application. Whether the inverse is true for that product or BoatyardBoy's homemade coating, I don't know.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"Nope, the guys that helped me apply it have done this same thing with 3 other boats and one was picked up at our yard last year and only needed a pressure wash. It was almost 10 years old and still looked great. That works for me. It's first hand experience not 3rd. "

It is good to hear that someone (the "guys" that you can trust with your life) has had a ten year success record with a copper-loaded epoxy. Some of us have seen similar products from professional vendors work, or fail, and for a similar decade there's been a lot of discussion about it, but very few people actually come back to post how many years of success they have had.

So few that one really has to wonder, if this was the magical better mousetrap, how come no one has been accumulating mice? Or, why does it work well in some cases, and poorly in others? Looking forward to hearing your _truly _first-person results over the coming five years.


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

MedSailor said:


> Keep us posted Boy! I commend you for giving it a go and trying something new. I have a feeling that you're educated enough about what's going on that if it doesn't work out, you will have known what you were getting into, and you have the resources to fix it if it needs to come off later.
> 
> If it does work, which I hope it does, then it'll be great! Whichever way it goes, we can all learn from your experimentation, so please post results in the coming years.
> 
> MedSailor


I'll be sure to continue to update this thread with pictures and times as time goes on.



christian.hess said:


> good job boatyard
> 
> boat is looking great....keep us updated for sure...


Thanks Christian, will do.



hellosailor said:


> "Nope, the guys that helped me apply it have done this same thing with 3 other boats and one was picked up at our yard last year and only needed a pressure wash. It was almost 10 years old and still looked great. That works for me. It's first hand experience not 3rd. "
> 
> It is good to hear that someone (the "guys" that you can trust with your life) has had a ten year success record with a copper-loaded epoxy. Some of us have seen similar products from professional vendors work, or fail, and for a similar decade there's been a lot of discussion about it, but very few people actually come back to post how many years of success they have had.
> 
> So few that one really has to wonder, if this was the magical better mousetrap, how come no one has been accumulating mice? Or, why does it work well in some cases, and poorly in others? Looking forward to hearing your _truly _first-person results over the coming five years.


I think the issue is that people expect a miracle anti-fouling paint. It's not going to happen. Even Trinidad SR will need regular cleaning. And you will have to strip Trinidad off your boat eventually because it's not an ablative. You can't just keep throwing on that paint without one day taking it off or your boat will have 10 coats of copper loaded paint weighing you boat down. This alone is a mute argument when people say that you have to "strip the boat to gel or the barrier coat to apply a copper loaded epoxy". And on the regular cleaning, once any paint gets slime on it, anything can grow on it. Yea, it will come off easy but it can still adhere enough to hold itself on to the bottom of the boat. Most will come off if you actually use the boat(ablatives are really only effective if you use your boat, it can't "wear like soap" sitting at the dock with no water movement).

I'd rather scrub my boat every few months for the next decade than have to pick it up, wash it, sand it to prep it, and paint it every few years. Lift costs are expensive and being in the yard takes time. Then the recurring buying of new paint costs. Then at some point you will have to sand all that paint off(exception ablatives) so you don't have 5 coatings of old, non-effective paint on your bottom.

It's human nature for people to be weary of things that aren't the ordinary, I'm trying this stuff out myself because I don't want to go through the other cycle of work(plus it was free). If everyone did this they would be weary of ablatives and Trinidad because that's not what mainstream was doing. And I'm not saying those don't work, they clearly do, but I weighed the options and I don't want the lift and yard costs down the road. Plus I don't like sanding on 40ft of waterline.

Do it once, do it right, and I'll let you know how it goes. And I plan on sailing to the Caribbean and then the Northeast, so I'll have a few different waters to test it in.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

BoatyardBoy said:


> I'd rather scrub my boat every few months for the next decade than have to pick it up, wash it, sand it to prep it, and paint it every few years. I weighed the options and I don't want the lift and yard costs down the road. Plus I don't like sanding on 40ft of waterline.


Maybe you've failed to understand that the way any anti fouling coating works is by continually delivering biocide to the surface of the coating. Traditional anti fouling paints do this by design. But since you've locked your biocide up in epoxy, the only way to bring fresh biocide to the surface of the coating is to haul the boat on a regular basis (like annually) and sand the coating down to expose more copper.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Fstbttms said:


> Maybe you've failed to understand that the way any anti fouling coating works is by continually delivering biocide to the surface of the coating. Traditional anti fouling paints do this by design. But since you've locked your biocide up in epoxy, the only way to bring fresh biocide to the surface of the coating is to haul the boat on a regular basis (like annually) and sand the coating down to expose more copper.


Years ago, I tried coating my prop shaft and strut using West epoxy with their copper powder mixed in...

Yours is the best, and most succinct, explanation of why I was underwhelmed by its effect on marine growth, and found it to ultimately less effective than my bottom coating of Micron CSC over time...


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

Fstbttms said:


> Maybe you've failed to understand that the way any anti fouling coating works is by continually delivering biocide to the surface of the coating. Traditional anti fouling paints do this by design. But since you've locked your biocide up in epoxy, the only way to bring fresh biocide to the surface of the coating is to haul the boat on a regular basis (like annually) and sand the coating down to expose more copper.


I haven't failed anything, I said they work. I understand how they work, but when those biocides are used up you have to start over. Regardless, I'm trying this on my boat. Please let know how this is your problem. I'm not claiming anything against whatever soapbox ideas you have. Take a seat already, you have already won the award for beating the dead horse the hardest.


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

JonEisberg said:


> Years ago, I tried coating my prop shaft and strut using West epoxy with their copper powder mixed in...
> 
> Yours is the best, and most succinct, explanation of why I was underwhelmed by its effect on marine growth, and found it to ultimately less effective than my bottom coating of Micron CSC over time...


Not all epoxies and copper powder are created equal, so I shall see. But like I have said, I'll let you know how my mileage varies.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

BoatyardBoy said:


> I haven't failed anything, I said they work. I understand how they work, but when those biocides are used up you have to start over. Regardless, I'm trying this on my boat. Please let know how this is your problem. I'm not claiming anything against whatever soapbox ideas you have. Take a seat already, you have already won the award for beating the dead horse the hardest.


I beg to differ. If you understood how copper-loaded epoxies worked, you wouldn't have come in here claiming you won't have to haul for ten years. My job is not to beat a dead horse but to enlighten not only you but those inclined to follow in your footsteps about the realities of the path you've chosen. I understand that I'm raining on your parade, however. Sorry about that.	:gunner


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"I think the issue is that people expect a miracle anti-fouling paint. It's not going to happen. "
One might suggest the miracle anti-fouling paint in fact DID exist. It is called TBT and it has been banned because it killed all the bottom growth and (oops) mutated anything else near the boat. But it did work, very nicely.

The difference between epoxy and ablative bottom paints, which indeed do wear off and out, is that the ablative is designed so that you don't need to do all the expensive and time consuming SANDING when it has worn out. Sand the copperpoxy every year, and you still have to recoat when it wears out. Put on ablative...and in theory you skip all the sanding and wind up in the same place. If you've put on a similarly thick coating to start with, although normally you wouldn't.

You'd think after a decade or two on the market...copper loaded epoxy products would have an unquestioned track record. Or...


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Do not confuse a copper-loaded epoxy (which is what BoatyardBoy has created) with a modified epoxy paint. Completely different animals.


----------



## Puddin'_Tain (Feb 14, 2014)

Fstbttms said:


> Maybe you've failed to understand that the way any anti fouling coating works is by continually delivering biocide to the surface of the coating. Traditional anti fouling paints do this by design. But since you've locked your biocide up in epoxy, the only way to bring fresh biocide to the surface of the coating is to haul the boat on a regular basis (like annually) and sand the coating down to expose more copper.


Wouldn't scrubbing the bottom with a "Scotch pad" while the boat is in the water do the same thing?


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Puddin'_Tain said:


> Wouldn't scrubbing the bottom with a "Scotch pad" while the boat is in the water do the same thing?


No.


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

Fstbttms said:


> I beg to differ. If you understood how copper-loaded epoxies worked, you wouldn't have come in here claiming you won't have to haul for ten years. My job is not to beat a dead horse but to enlighten not only you but those inclined to follow in your footsteps about the realities of the path you've chosen. I understand that I'm raining on your parade, however. Sorry about that.	:gunner


You are not raining on my parade, you are just saying the same thing over and over again. I understand how paints work and I chose this for my boat not your boat. The realities for you and I are different. Let's just agree to disagree. Your "enlightenment" has been made over the course of this thread. Anyone can read that and chose for themselves which path they want to go down.


----------



## Puddin'_Tain (Feb 14, 2014)

Fstbttms said:


> No.


Why not? A Scotch Pad will definitely scratch, and thus abrade, most epoxies. I suppose the effectiveness of the Scotch Pad depends on the hardness of the epoxy. But I don't see any reason why, in principle, it shouldn't work.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Puddin'_Tain said:


> Why not? A Scotch Pad will definitely scratch, and thus abrade, most epoxies. I suppose the effectiveness of the Scotch Pad depends on the hardness of the epoxy. But I don't see any reason why, in principle, it shouldn't work.


What you are talking about is sanding several mils of thickness of hardened epoxy from the entire wetted surface of a 50' sailboat with a tool not designed to do the job, all while floating underwater with nothing to provide leverage.

Good luck with that.


----------



## Puddin'_Tain (Feb 14, 2014)

Fstbttms said:


> What you are talking about is sanding several mils of thickness of hardened epoxy from the entire wetted surface of a 50' sailboat with a tool not designed to do the job, all while floating underwater with nothing to provide leverage.
> 
> Good luck with that.


Details, details.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)




----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

hellosailor said:


> "I think the issue is that people expect a miracle anti-fouling paint. It's not going to happen. "
> One might suggest the miracle anti-fouling paint in fact DID exist. It is called TBT and it has been banned because it killed all the bottom growth and (oops) mutated anything else near the boat. But it did work, very nicely.


I'm still holding out for depleted uranium paint. I want to see a trail of upside down 3 eyed fish behind the boat. 

MedSailor


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

I have suggested to Practical Sailor that they add some uniform cleaning method to their paint testing. Certainly there are differences in how fast paints wear and how they respond to cleaning. The requirements of Copper Coat (haul and sand) are a different category, but a light wipe-off would make sense (different frequency for hard vs. soft). I my mind, this would be a second set of panels, since the stagnant panels are still very valid and seem to match my experience during periods of light use. But for example, we have all noticed that when we are sailing frequently and far, fouling is much less, depending on the paint condition and specific product.

Write in and ask. Maybe if they hear it enough it will become clear that it is the next logical step.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

pdqaltair said:


> I have suggested to Practical Sailor that they add some uniform cleaning method to their paint testing. Certainly there are differences in how fast paints wear and how they respond to cleaning.


So what frequency of cleaning do you suggest? Fouling rates vary so widely from region to region that there is no way to incorporate a meaningful cleaning protocol into the PS anti fouling paint reviews that was useful for anywhere other than the very few places PS conducts their test, IMHO. Which, BTW, is why I personally consider the PS paint reviews to be next to worthless anyway.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Fstbttms said:


> So what frequency of cleaning do you suggest? Fouling rates vary so widely from region to region that there is no way to incorporate a meaningful cleaning protocol into the PS anti fouling paint reviews that was useful for anywhere other than the very few places PS conducts their test, IMHO. Which, BTW, is why I personally consider the PS paint reviews to be next to worthless anyway.


The reason for my post was to inspire you guys to suggest something more realistic. You can do it! Yes, there are obviously many variables, but the alternatives is often poorly informed guess work. And who wants to gamble on a new paint without SOMETHING to suggest it might work? Yes, you can look at actual boats, but there are even more variables there. I see big differences within the same marina, with the same paint, as I'm sure you do.

PS can add locations--they have testers nationally--but readers need to suggest that.

As for being worthless, I think Copper Coat got it right when they said it was a test for ablatives (no cleaning). Yes, paints are regional, and in some areas where spring rains change from year-to-year (huge issue in the Chesapeake), always changeable, but overall my experience with 6 of the paints (been sailing a long time) squares pretty well with PS... but they were all soft paints (Trinidad SR-40 and SR-60, PCA Gold, Micron CSC and Extra, 66). Certainly it is a mistake to place too much on a test result with this many variables.

Don't give up. Let's hear how you would test.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Is there a way we can combine anchor testing and bottom paint testing? That would surely up the readership....

MedSailor


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

Well haven't put the boat in the water yet, didn't work out with the yard management. It will have to wait till Dec when I get back from sea. 

Otherwise, I have a picture of the bottom oxidizing from the hole in my hull where a transducer will be before it's splashed. Now this is just fresh water from the bilge running through it and the salt in the air from our brackish water we have down here.. 

Here's the picture... Inconclusive at best but thought I'd update with something.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Thanks for the update.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Beautiful bottom.

Grab a hot glue gun and six inches of plastic hose, glue a pee hose in that hole and it won't dribble down the hull. The "hot glue" usually peels off very cleanly when you want to remove it.

Worse things happen.


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

hellosailor said:


> Beautiful bottom.
> 
> Grab a hot glue gun and six inches of plastic hose, glue a pee hose in that hole and it won't dribble down the hull. The "hot glue" usually peels off very cleanly when you want to remove it.
> 
> Worse things happen.


Well was going to put the ducer in but didn't because I wasn't going over.. So I left it. Good idea though. At one time I had a hose but took it out to put transducer in..


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Idea! paint the mold with a conducting material,, Fill to water line with copper sulphate. Hook up anode and cathode to solar panels (keeping it green) then gel coat and carry on construction.


----------



## captbillc (Jul 31, 2008)

i am in the fresh water of lake superior so i use petit hard racing coper bronze. it works well.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Its very funny this copper stops growth thing.
I have two massive chunks of copper on the bottom of my haul, about 6" wide, 12" long, and 1" thick. They are bare copper, and always have hard growth on them. Only my zincs don't get hard growth. lol


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

UnionPacific said:


> Its very funny this copper stops growth thing.
> I have two massive chunks of copper on the bottom of my haul, about 6" wide, 12" long, and 1" thick. They are bare copper, and always have hard growth on them.


This is Hull Cleaning 101 stuff and you should know it. The reason copper-based anti fouling paints work is because they are designed to leach their particular form of copper biocide into the boundary layer of water surrounding the hull, thus inhibiting the growth of fouling organisms. The "massive chunks" of metal protruding from your hull are 1.- bronze, not copper and 2.- even if they were copper would not be shedding their material into the water in any way that would effectively hinder fouling growth.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Fstbttms said:


> This is Hull Cleaning 101 stuff and you should know it. The reason copper-based anti fouling paints work is because they are designed to leach their particular form of copper biocide into the boundary layer of water surrounding the hull, thus inhibiting the growth of fouling organisms. The "massive chunks" of metal protruding from your hull are 1.- bronze, not copper and 2.- even if they were copper would not be shedding their material into the water in any way that would effectively hinder fouling growth.


I believe they are SSB grounding blocks, are these typically bronze or copper? 
Thou to be honest, I have no idea why they are there. I cannot find a wire running to them from the SSB or anywhere, and they are directly under the masts. Could these be lightning blocks of some sort?


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

UnionPacific said:


> I believe they are SSB grounding blocks, are these typically bronze or copper?
> Thou to be honest, I have no idea why they are there. I cannot find a wire running to them from the SSB or anywhere, and they are directly under the masts. Could these be lightning blocks of some sort?


They are grounding blocks, which are frequently mounted in pairs and they are made of bronze.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

I learned an interesting lesson here (twice, once on each boat) about pure, bare copper. 

It grows stuff! On both boats I used solid (non stranded) copper wire to try and externally bond a zinc to some exterior metal. Both grew stuff like crazy. Once, when I SCUBA dove my boat, i found, attached to my bare copper wire, muscles worthy of serving with frites, and kelp that was 8ft long!!!

I was VERY surprised and it made me wonder about how well copper sheathing on the wooden boats of yore really worked...


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

MedSailor said:


> I was VERY surprised and it made me wonder about how well copper sheathing on the wooden boats of yore really worked...


Copper sheathing was used to deter teredo worms, not other fouling organisms.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

Fstbttms said:


> Copper sheathing was used to deter teredo worms, not other fouling organisms.


True enough.. however, unlike the alternatives of the time, it did provide a surface that fouling organisms could be fairly easily removed from without too much hard scrubbing.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Classic30 said:


> ...it did provide a surface that fouling organisms could be fairly easily removed from without too much hard scrubbing.


And you know this how?


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

Fstbttms said:


> And you know this how?


Because AFAICR the alternatives for a timber-planked yacht were (a) ordinary paint or (b) sacrificial timber - and scrubbing a nail-studded metal-plate surface certainly seemed a lot easier to me than scrubbing a timbered one, since it seemed that the fouling beasties couldn't get their roots into the sheeting as easily as they could penetrate the timber..

(..and just possibly, if the sheeting was fairly new and it wasn't your boat anyway, if one of the beasties was a bit stubborn you could apply a bit more force knowing you weren't going to (a) expose bare timber or (b) damage the planking.)


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Classic30 said:


> Because AFAICR the alternatives for a timber-planked yacht were (a) ordinary paint or (b) sacrificial timber - and scrubbing a nail-studded metal-plate surface certainly seemed a lot easier to me than scrubbing timber, since it seemed that the fouling beasties couldn't get their roots into the sheeting as easily as they could penetrate the timber..
> 
> ..and just possibly you could apply a bit more force knowing you weren't going to take the paint off or damage the planking.


So you are making an assumption about historic anti fouling techniques, not posting from empiracle knowledge.

And "sacrificial timber"? That's a new one on me.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Fstbttms said:


> So you are making an assumption about historic anti fouling techniques, not posting from empiracle knowledge.
> 
> And "sacrificial timber"? That's a new one on me.


They sell it next to the zincs in west marine.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

Fstbttms said:


> So you are making an assumption about historic anti fouling techniques, not posting from empiracle knowledge.
> 
> And "sacrificial timber"? That's a new one on me.


No, Fstbttms - it's based on the personal experience of a kid messing around on other people's wooden yachts..

..and until proper antifouling paints were invented, a sacrificial timber cladding (not copper) - with a gazillion nails, I might add, to hold the timber on as it got eaten - was first choice on workboat hulls ever since the days of the early explorers (and perhaps even before then, for all I know) for deterring teredos because it worked and worked well. Although far more expensive both then and now, copper cladding became fashionable on small yachts because it provided much less drag, wasn't as nearly as heavy and lasted longer.

I'm rather surprised you, of all people, don't know this... especially since I've mentioned this already back in post #31. Next you'll be telling me you've never heard of careening piles.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

North Star had a 1" skin of green heart (nearly impervious to everything including ice) . when Sven refastened and reapplied the greenheart he then applied ships felt and copper sheathing. It's been +25 years now, no bugs,no worms and dammed little growth of any kind. Good quality copper helps and sure beats painting and worrying if you scuff a bit. Thicker panels along the raised boot top.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

Capt Len said:


> North Star had a 1" skin of green heart (nearly impervious to everything including ice) . when Sven refastened and reapplied the greenheart he then applied ships felt and copper sheathing. It's been +25 years now, no bugs,no worms and dammed little growth of any kind. Good quality copper helps and sure beats painting and worrying if you scuff a bit. Thicker panels along the raised boot top.


"Twixt wind and water".. 

Yep, that's how it's done - it's just ridiculously expensive these days.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Northstar of Herschel Island - built is San Francisco in 1935 - Fastbottom's neighborhood.



North Star of Herschel Island North Star of Hershel Island, Historical Sailing Arctic Cargo Ships, British Columbia, Canada


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Classic30 said:


> I'm rather surprised you, of all people, don't know this... especially since I've mentioned this already back in post #31. Next you'll be telling me you've never heard of careening piles.


Yes, how could I have not retained a tidbit of arcane knowledge you apparently dropped in this thread 120 posts ago? 

That said, just a couple of posts ago you inferred that sacrificial timbers were an anti fouling option for wooden vessels. Please excuse me if that inference seemed unusual to me.


----------



## aa3jy (Jul 23, 2006)

"The History of the Prevention of Fouling"

https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/handle/1912/191/chapter 11.pdf?sequence=20


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

That was interesting reading. Next will be experiments with silica in a matrix of glass and carbon fibres or maybe even chicken wire.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

I have a freshwater aquarium with some decorative rocks in it. Everything gets covered with algae, except obsidian stays sparking clean. Maybe we should start making hulls out of obsidian.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

Minnesail said:


> I have a freshwater aquarium with some decorative rocks in it. Everything gets covered with algae, except obsidian stays sparking clean. Maybe we should start making hulls out of obsidian.


Well I guess you will have to do some experiments with saltwater aquariums do those of us on the coast. Be sure to patent it!


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Minne-
Is all obsidian the same? Or should you be peskering your fish store to find out what kind you've got?
Could be the glassly texture deters critters, but if it was the mineral content...Race ya to the patent office!

Microtexturing has been shown to deter all sorts of critters and IIRC obsidian doesn't fracture perfectly flat or smooth, there's some conchodial fracture pattern, no? With some texture to it?


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

Fstbttms said:


> And you know this how?


Well when you own a boat from 1652 :laugher:laugher:laugher

Oh I guess it is not that old.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

hellosailor said:


> Minne-
> Is all obsidian the same? Or should you be peskering your fish store to find out what kind you've got?
> Could be the glassly texture deters critters, but if it was the mineral content...Race ya to the patent office!
> 
> Microtexturing has been shown to deter all sorts of critters and IIRC obsidian doesn't fracture perfectly flat or smooth, there's some conchodial fracture pattern, no? With some texture to it?


The algae that grows in my tank has no fear of glass, I need to scrape down the glass sides fairly regularly. Every other rock in it has a nice coating of algae. I'm going for a natural look, with real plants and such, so I like the algal look.

I don't really pay a lot of attention to the tank, to be honest, but last week I was doing a little maintenance and noticed that the obsidian was completely clean.

I think there is something unique about the way obsidian fractures. I can't quite remember. Don't they make knives out of it? My dad is a geologist, when I was a kid he'd tell me all this stuff, and I'd forget it just as fast.

Maybe this is my million dollar idea and I should quit talking about it on the internet!


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Shhh! Don't tell the TSA, but stone aged civilizations made plenty of edged weapons from obsidian. And the sharpest surgical scalpel blades in the world (at least used to be) made from it as well. You work it, knapp it, pretty much the same as flint, but obsidian is scarcer and gives a sharper cleaner edge. 

Somewhere in rural Italy, there's a master marble sculptor who'd say "Oh, sure, I can make you a hull out of that, all one piece. When you want to start?"


----------



## Multihullgirl (Dec 2, 2010)

Given how brittle obsidian is, wouldn't want to run aground in an obsidian boat


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

Multihullgirl said:


> Given how brittle obsidian is, wouldn't want to run aground in an obsidian boat


Well... it surely couldn't be much worse than ferro-cement.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

Multihullgirl said:


> Given how brittle obsidian is, wouldn't want to run aground in an obsidian boat





Classic30 said:


> Well... it surely couldn't be much worse than ferro-cement.


The obsidian boat would leave much prettier debris.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

Minnesail said:


> The obsidian boat would leave much prettier debris.


..more useful, too, I might add!...


----------



## SailRedemption (Jun 29, 2013)

So I moved my boat to her new home and took a dive on her because the water was deep and clearer at this marina. The transit was about an hour at hull speed(new engine so I ran her hard on and off). Mind you, it has been in the water for almost 7 months (end of December we splashed) 

My findings:
Well, the Marpro ablative I put on the shaft and prop looked clean. There was paint missing on the prop blades, which was expected. 

The hull, we'll the hull looked like the day I put her in on probably 80 percent of the hull. There was only a thin film of blackish slim/algae? On the under belly but stopped at the keel and the turn of the bilge. I didn't have a camera with me when I dove. But when I get back from this hitch offshore I'll post pictures. 

The area I'm in is Lake Pontchartrain so the water is brackish. We do get barnacles and slime etc. In fact before I dove on my boat I dove on a 36' sport fish to clean the trim tabs rudders and propellers for this summer. It has the 67 percent Marpro ablative from Donovan. It had 60-70 percent coverage of full size barnacles on the underwater hardware. Hasn't been cleaned since last summer and has 1yr old paint. Our boats were about 3/4 mile from each other before the move. 

Thought I'd give an update. Pictures to come.... In another 3 weeks 

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk


----------



## sandymwp (Feb 6, 2015)

Captainmeme said:


> Point well taken Fastbottoms and could apply to the paint companies as well.


we are from East Tennessee, Lenoir City.....interested in this post and following thru to the end. we are having our cat copper-coated for use in the Caribbean.


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

I have just posted a new video report (number 4) of our Coppercoat on our Youtube page. You can see all of them in our playlist of Op-Evals at:





Or just go to our Youtube listed below....

Greg


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

Thanks for the video. Couple of questions. Whats with the zinc at that location? 
How old is the copper coat? You tend to pull the boat out of the water often and then pressure wash so
I'm not sure if one can use this example for a boat that is left in the water for years. 
What is the longest period of time the boat has been in the water with copper coat and how
was the bottom when she was hauled? I guess the difference of growth between the hull and the prop area 
does attest to the functionality of copper coat.


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

Captainmeme said:


> Thanks for the video. Couple of questions. Whats with the zinc at that location?
> How old is the copper coat? You tend to pull the boat out of the water often and then pressure wash so
> I'm not sure if one can use this example for a boat that is left in the water for years.
> What is the longest period of time the boat has been in the water with copper coat and how
> ...


Our prop is in an aperture and when I went to the 3 blade feathering, I did not have room for the zinc back there. So, I added a shaft brush and side zinc.

We do haul often as we are now part time cruising different areas. In the Bay area (our report #2) ......




This report # 2 also had a lot of fresh water usage up in the Delta and Shows how it worked there.

Report #3 shows from New Orleans to Pensacola. Both reports show how it worked in each area.

This report, #4, from Tampa to almost Lake Okeechobee, was the shortest time in the water, about 60 days with only about 4 days in fresh water, BUT it also had the MOST growth in areas that the coating did not work, So I thought it was a better example of how the stuff worked.

We are planning a much longer cruise next. And are hoping for MUCH clearer water so will post more then.

BUT, for now it sure looks like it is working very well.

Greg


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Fstbttms said:


> CopperCoat on a Hallberg-Rassey 43 in Berkeley.
> Do you honestly believe that 300-year-old technology is going to provide you better performance than current anti fouling coatings?


Since not one of the "current anti fouling coatings" seems to do the job we are paying hundreds of dollars per gallon for, I see no reason not to go backwards.
Even the products that are illegal in the US (more toxic?) don't work. And we're not talking about marina bound boats here, but boats traveling plenty of miles each year and staying away from the foul estuaries and harbors that the boats you clean sit in.
We can send a spacecraft to land on another planet, but we can't find a paint that will inhibit underwater growth? Bah humbug.


----------

