Bottom paint Blues

[boto]

In June of 2011 we were in Grenada and put into the Spice Island Marine Services yard to have a bottom job done. We had initially selected Micron 66 paint to use, however by the time we went to purchase the paint the yard had already applied a primer coat which we were informed was only compatible with SeaHawk paints. Perhaps we should have foreseen the problems to come. So at the recommendation of the yard and based on their stated policy we purchased SeaHawk paint. The yard subsequently applied a second primer coat and then two coats of SeaHawk paint.
Within six months we noticed that the paint was sloughing off at the waterline, as of this date we have a halo of yellow primer around the boat at the waterline. The balance of the bottom job is in good shape.
When we contacted the yard we were told that it was our problem as we had purchased the paint. The fact that the yard told us they only use SeaHawk , that they do not purchase the paint the customer does and further that they had already applied a primer compatible only with SeaHawk apparently is beside the point. Perhaps we were a bit naive.
We then contacted SeaHawk who informed us that it was our problem as the yard did not follow the application guidelines set out by SeaHawk. The fact that the yard represents SeaHawk, advised us as to which product to use and would only allow their employees to do the work apparently has no bearing. It should be noted that SeaHawks initial response to our inquiry was that we need to remove the paint and have a new bottom job done.
To be fair SeaHawk did offer, after much conversation to send us a free gallon of paint, however, they could never seem to coordinate with us as to a delivery point nor date. Now that we are back in the United States we cannot get the paint which was used nor will Sea Hawk assist further, other than to offer us the names of dealers where we can purchase additional paint.
After numerous frustrating conversations with Sea Hawk and Spice Island Marine Services we are wondering if we have simply been the victims of our own naiveté to trust the advice and workmanship of supposed professionals or if there have been other similar experiences.

[Cheechako]

well..... I've not heard that Seahawk is special as far as compatibility with other products.... I dont think you have any recourse with a yard down island, but it's nice to pass the info on so other boater's can beware. It sounds a lot like an application issue, maybe they waited too long between coats or had something on the sanded hull that interferred with bonding.... i wonder what they wiped the hull with before that first coat?

[bruce smith]

the land of
Hey No Problem Mon
(until it is)

[buzzzerk]

the operative words here may be . . . "supposed professionals".

don't trust any of them, be sure you supervise EVERYTHING, and get it in writing.

before u haul out!

[Cheechako]

"Hey, No Problem Mon, it be da Seahawk version of Micron 66"!

[Alvaro Ramirez]

I met this guy in Colombia who is a passionate sailor and investigator that has developed an additive for ablative paints that improves the performance of the bottom paint and retards the adherence of barnacle, and algae to the hull´s surface for amazing periods reducing the need for bottom cleanups with the consecuent savings not t talk about fuel savings fron less friction. This product is ecofriendly and considered inherently safe for humans and mother nature. The name is ProFoul. I used the product in my boat´s bottom paint in Cartagena, Colombia and it´s been in the water for the last 4 months and yet no trace of any crustacean or algae.
If you may want any information I can contact this fellow and see how to source it. The cost for mine was 13 dollars per gallon bottom paint. The paint flows easier when applying it. it seemed to me also that coverage was geratly improved.

best regards

[MarkSF]

Originally Posted by Alvaro Ramirez

I met this guy in Colombia who is a passionate sailor and investigator that has developed an additive for ablative paints that improves the performance of the bottom paint and retards the adherence of barnacle, and algae to the hull´s surface for amazing periods reducing the need for bottom cleanups with the consecuent savings not t talk about fuel savings fron less friction. This product is ecofriendly and considered inherently safe for humans and mother nature. The name is ProFoul. I used the product in my boat´s bottom paint in Cartagena, Colombia and it´s been in the water for the last 4 months and yet no trace of any crustacean or algae.
If you may want any information I can contact this fellow and see how to source it. The cost for mine was 13 dollars per gallon bottom paint. The paint flows easier when applying it. it seemed to me also that coverage was geratly improved.

best regards

It's probably tri-butyl tin, therefore you can't go in half the world's coastal waters now.

[MarkSF]

Who bought the paint has nothing to do with it. Is it true that the yard did not follow Seahawk's application instructions? If so, they should do the job again. Are they arguing that if you bought the paint it is your fault if they don't apply it properly? Clearly that argument does not hold much water, no pun intended.

In what way did they not follow the instructions? They applied two coats of primer, then two coats of paint. Sounds fine. Did they not wait long enough between coats?

[Alvaro Ramirez]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

It's probably tri-butyl tin, therefore you can't go in half the world's coastal waters now.

Many thanks for your prompt response but this additive has no metallic content in is is intrinsically safe meaning that you can virtually eat it without any harmful effects of your body. This powder "charged" with a nanoparticulate delivery system disperses the particules in the paint exposing them as the paint ablates.
No harmful effects on mother nature is their claim. And works wonderfully.

the best...much less spending on hull cleaning and less friction for us racers. I understand that they will be testing the product in a Colombian Navy ship. promising lower use of fossil fuels over time....less contamination.... lost of savings.
best

[MarkSF]

Lots of pseudo-science there. So what is the ingredient? Are their claims backed up with any sound scientific evidence?

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

It's probably tri-butyl tin, therefore you can't go in half the world's coastal waters now.

yeah... I know the bottom paint inspectors come to my marina all the time....

[Alvaro Ramirez]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

Lots of pseudo-science there. So what is the ingredient? Are their claims backed up with any sound scientific evidence?

Hi Mark, thanks again for your reply but i really want to share this magnificent results with all.
I spoke to the guy and sent me a chemical composition for the products claiming that mother nature was thankful for his development. It´s in spanish but very easy to read.

Plata < 0,5 % Aluminio 1, 77 % Arsénico 10,9 ppm Bario 111 ppm
Berilio < 1ppm Bismuto 0,3 ppm Calcio 12,9 % Cadmio 0,6 ppm
Cobalto 3 ppm Cromo 16 ppm Cobre 7 ppm Hierro 0,6 ppm
Germanio 1 ppm Mercurio 35 ppm Potasio 0,46 % Lantano 24 ppm
Magnesio 0,19% Manganeso 40 ppm Molibdeno < 2 ppm Zirconio 19 ppm
Sodio 0,69 % Niobio 2 ppm Níquel 5 ppm Fósforo 0,01 %
Plomo < 5 ppm Antimonio 0,7 ppm Escandio 2 ppm Selenio < 1 ppm
Estaño < 2 ppm Estroncio 749 ppm Telurio < 2 ppm Torio < 2 ppm
Titanio 0,09 % Talio < 5 ppm Uranio < 10 ppm Vanadio < 101 ppm
Wolframio < 4 ppm Itrio 6 ppm Zinc 31 ppm **********

The developer claims that the product acts Physically and not chemically to impede the barnacles and algae from setting in...
The colloidal delivery system is only used for dispersant in the ablative paint used (can be any known type)

Again, the name of the product is ProFoul - Nature´s wish hull protection

best

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Alvaro Ramirez

...this additive has no metallic content in is is intrinsically safe meaning that you can virtually eat it without any harmful effects of your body.

OK, you first. Among the composition list are arsenic, cadmium, chromium, barium, cobalt, lead, uranium and mercury.

BTW, I'm calling BS on this because a lot of it doesn't make sense or seems to be blowing smoke. For example, you say it has no metallic content, but every single ingredient on that list is a metal. Another example, Wolframio and Titanio are two names for the same component (titanium's Latin scientific name is Wolframium). (edit: sorry, I confused titanium with tungsten) And another: the majority of that list are highly regulated environmentally, if not purchasing (uranium????). I could go on...

And the name Profoul for an antifouling additive is hilarious!

Mark

[MarkSF]

Originally Posted by colemj

OK, you first. Among the composition list are arsenic, cadmium, chromium, barium, cobalt, lead, uranium and mercury.

BTW, I'm calling BS on this because a lot of it doesn't make sense or seems to be blowing smoke. For example, you say it has no metallic content, but every single ingredient on that list is a metal. Another example, Wolframio and Titanio are two names for the same component (titanium's Latin scientific name is Wolframium). (edit: sorry, I confused titanium with tungsten) And another: the majority of that list are highly regulated environmentally, if not purchasing (uranium????). I could go on...

And the name Profoul for an antifouling additive is hilarious!

Mark

Yeah it basically looks like a list of all the things you really shouldn't put in the ocean.

Hard to imagine mother nature being grateful for adding deadly, toxic, highly regulated heavy metals to the water. The EPA just spent 30 years trying to get them OUT of SF Bay.

I highly doubt if those are the ingredients anyway. So far all we've heard is a load of psuedo-scientific bafflegab that contradicts itself but includes some important buzzwords : nanoparticles, natural, non-metallic, colloidal, and so on. My money is on it being pure snake oil, if it exists at all, which I am beginning to doubt.

Interestingly, a search on ProFoul additive yields : no hits. I think we've wasted enough time on this troll.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by colemj

OK, you first. Among the composition list are arsenic, cadmium, chromium, barium, cobalt, lead, uranium and mercury.

BTW, I'm calling BS on this because a lot of it doesn't make sense or seems to be blowing smoke. For example, you say it has no metallic content, but every single ingredient on that list is a metal. Another example, Wolframio and Titanio are two names for the same component (titanium's Latin scientific name is Wolframium). (edit: sorry, I confused titanium with tungsten) And another: the majority of that list are highly regulated environmentally, if not purchasing (uranium????). I could go on...

And the name Profoul for an antifouling additive is hilarious!

Mark

After re-reading the list, I have to backtrack just a bit and say that it reads like a lab analysis report and not a content sheet. In other words, the lab probably tested for all possible metals and those listed <X% are below the detection limits of the analysis methodology used.

Doesn't change my view of it as BS, though, and it still contains significant toxins, but all of them (like uranium, for example).

Mark