Visit our Popular Forums

**James S** · 19-04-2010, 10:04

I'm thinking you're got the best boat show Greg....happy sails mate!

Stevens 47 · 19-04-2010, 10:15

Greg,

Thanks for posting your information.

Can you answer some questions for me.

1 How long did your first install of the copper epoxy last, number of years. From your post it would seem like 4-5 is that correct.

2 What did you do to maintain the bottom, like how often did you clean or haul to maintain.

3 Did you decide to reapply a new bottom because the copper had worn off.

4 What was your replacement regime to prep the old bottom for the new.

I have been considering writing to the UK supplier of a similar system not yet available in USA, there is a thread on the forum with the link.

Thanks Jack

Delezynski · 19-04-2010, 17:14

Jack,

Please click on the hot link to view the recent report, and it has links to our 1 year and 11 year reports also. The report will answer all of your questions and more, with photos to boot.

Greg

dinocuri · 30-07-2010, 09:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms

I was referring to the changes manufacturers make to their traditional, copper-based anti fouling paints, such as adding a slime retardant. What you apparently are referring to are the next generation of anti fouling systems, such as zinc oxide paints, foul-release coatings, photo reactive hydrogen peroxide paints etc., etc. These newer types of anti fouling do represent a new anti fouling technology.

As does this "Cuniguard". It apparently uses "copper nickel" as the anti foulant and is sprayed over an epoxy barrier coat. One assumes it works much the same way as copper-loaded epoxies (which have been discussed ad naseum here) like CopperCoat and Copperpoxy, and these products have proven to have very limited performance in regions of moderate to high fouling. Further, the news release that the OP linked to states that the product is non-toxic. I would argue that it is absolutely toxic, as it is (by the manufacturer's own admission) releasing copper and nickle into the environment, both of which are heavy metals and are toxic (in quantity). In addition, the news release claims this product is superior to traditional anti fouling paints in that it doesn't need to be pressure washed or abraded to ensure that the toxin is released. What the writer of the news release is either ignorant about, or hopes the reader is, is that copper-based paints release their toxin at a proscribed rate throughout their useful lives, regardless of whether the boat is washed, scrubbed or even moved. Several factual oversights, perhaps understandable since they are trying to launch what is undoubtably a very expensive product in a poor economic climate.

Just a couple of corrections on your post:

The coppernickel power is agitated and blown onto wet epoxy through a propiety pump. The copper nickel always remains at the surface and thus as is oxidises it is replaced by new coppernickel below. It wears out like the soles of your shoes. pparantly the oxide forma a slippery layer on the surface. i will let you know what I think of the trial(see below). The "coppercoat" mixed epoxy methods suffer from the problem that when the surface copper has oxidised the surface needs to be abraded to release fresh copper within the epoxy!

Also Copper and nickel are not heavey metals! They are toxic in large quantities to the marinme environment however and that was why they were removed from ablative antifoulings which released shedloads of copper into the sea!. The good thing about this product is that it oxidises slowly (well thats the theory, i am waiting to see how a trail on a friends old motor boat works) and therefore does not pose a toxic threat to marine life. Copper is non toxic to humans (as you know many of the fresh and hot water systems in homes are copper). Nickel is also pretty inert to humans. So I disagree with your statement thats its "absolutely toxic"

If all goes well I am going to apply it to my Cat thiis winter!

fstbttms · 30-07-2010, 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinocuri

Also Copper and nickel are not heavey metals!

I have to disagree. They are indeed, heavy metals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinocuri

They are toxic in large quantities...

This is the very definition of "heavy metal".

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinocuri

that was why they were removed from ablative antifoulings which released shedloads of copper into the sea!

I don't know which ablatives you are referring to, but where I come from, most ablatives are still laden with copper. Further, over the long run, ablatives do not release more copper than other anti fouling paints. Copper-based paints have a specified amount of copper to release. Ablatives to not have more copper (by weight) to release than other copper-based paints.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinocuri

The good thing about this product is that it oxidises slowly (well thats the theory, i am waiting to see how a trail on a friends old motor boat works) and therefore does not pose a toxic threat to marine life.

It is only non-toxic if oxididizing the copper somehow renders it inert. I am not enough of a chemist to know if this is the case or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinocuri

Copper is non toxic to humans (as you know many of the fresh and hot water systems in homes are copper). Nickel is also pretty inert to humans. So I disagree with your statement thats its "absolutely toxic"

Even the water carried by copper pipes is toxic, if you ingest enough of it. Same goes with copper or nickle. But that is beside the point. We aren't concerned with this product's toxicity to humans. We are concerned with its effect on the marine environment.

dinocuri · 10-08-2010, 14:04

Yes and so is water, salt or anything for that matter if you take it in great enough quantitiy!!!!
Its medically accepted that Lead, mercury, cobalt and cadmium are toxic heavy metals and are poisonous.

Copper (as are zinc,selenium,magnesium) is actually is crucial to energy pathways in mammmals in the Krebs cycle.

fstbttms · 10-08-2010, 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinocuri

Yes and so is water, salt or anything for that matter if you take it in great enough quantitiy!!!!
Its medically accepted that Lead, mercury, cobalt and cadmium are toxic heavy metals and are poisonous.

Copper (as are zinc,selenium,magnesium) is actually is crucial to energy pathways in mammmals in the Krebs cycle.

Do you actually have a salient argument or are you going to continue to contradict yourself?

**James S** · 11-08-2010, 00:57

Lets not let this get out of hand folks,

smallyachts · 11-08-2010, 05:33

All of this is theory but,

Epoxy has insulative qualities, copper and nickel both have conductive properties.

If you apply the epoxy, then blow the copper/nickel onto it, you are creating an electrical plate similar to one side of a capacitor.

If this is applied to a steel hull with insufficient grounding, you have just created a huge capacitor between the hull and coating. Since the two "plates are made of dissimilar metals I am not sure what kind of a mess could be created.

If it is a composite hull, you have the chance of creating many, many smaller capacitors anywhere a high current lead, or electrically energized metal structure is close to the hull, and electrically interact with the copper in the hull coating through the dielectic of the hull/epoxy materials.

Has anybody thought about testing with a "megger" or other device used for high resistance/voltage testing?

A real simple test would be (both hull in the water and hull out of the water and dry) check to see if you have any stray voltages or currents between the copper/nickel and any exposed metal fittings on the hull.

In addition, anywhere that very thin epoxy barrier is damaged, say on or very near a bronze thru hull or stainless fitting, what kind of electrolysis path is created?

Hagar54 · 06-03-2012, 02:10

I did my boat last year, in perfect condition. Lot of work and even longer time was put in by the company doing it. The cast Iron keels were blasted back, and cured, and sealed, the hull was epoxied again, and it did look good.

However having just lifted the boat out, it was somewhat mixed feelings. The Hull is sound, and the weed from where the sling had been were easy to wash of.

The cast Iron twin keels however is very disappointing. They are very rusty on the lower half, specially on the insid, where a lot of the Cuniguard seem to have been washed of, and completely disappeared.

My conclusion, is from one boat, don't waste your money, on a used boat as the keel preparation is too difficult and, Copper coat does the job just as well, which you can repair your self.

However factory finished new boats where it can be done in prime conditions, it looks promising. It does look as if the boat has been covered in a sheet of copper that is very strong and very difficult to damage.

Hagar