Is Coppercoat anti foul worth it?

[TheThunderbird]

Early on last century, wooden boat of value were copper sheathed

They did it so since the Roman empire, I think...

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by reed1v

?..yes copper works, or works in Hawaii, quite well. Old relic next to my boat had a thick copper bottom that was never cared for. it had the typical slime and some growth near water line, but otherwise no coral, nor shell growth at all. And it had been sitting in the Ala Wai for decades.

So you claim there is an anti fouling solution that is so effective it can keep an unused boat hard growth free for decades with zero maintenance in one of the highest fouling regions in the world.

I find it interesting that although your super effective anti fouling magic bullet has been known for centuries, virtually nobody uses it.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by reed1v

Go back to cleaning your boat bottoms. From what i understand from folks who know you, you do not even have a yacht. Anyways, yes copper works, or works in Hawaii, quite well. Old relic next to my boat had a thick copper bottom that was never cared for. it had the typical slime and some growth near water line, but otherwise no coral, nor shell growth at all. And it had been sitting in the Ala Wai for decades.

I think a person who cleans boat bottoms for a living is in a better position to give advice on bottom paint than a person who merely owns a boat. Some boat owners have no idea what is on the bottom of their boat, they just go to a boat yard and just pay to have it "bottom painted".

The first time I had my boat bottom painted, I asked my diver what worked best in my area. He recommended Pettit Trinidad SR77. I asked my marina manager and he recommended the same thing. I went on the Pettit website and used their paint finder and came up with the same result so that's what I specified. I got five or six years of service from it and just had it redone with the same paint.

Copper coat might be better, it might not but I doubt it would be worth the additional cost.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by reed1v

Of course if you got the budget for it, just have your hull sheathed in copper. Once done, your good to go for as long as the boat will last, or until you damage the bottom. Still will need periodic wiping to keep the slime down.

Originally Posted by fstbttms

So you're maintaining that copper sheathing is a more effective anti fouling solution than copper-based anti fouling paint? Do you have firsthand experience with a copper sheathed hull in the tropics? My guess is that you don't. Because the cleaning frequencies you suggest seem pretty unrealistic.

I'm curious also since I've been intimately around boats for 40 years and have yet to see a copper sheathed fiberglass boat. I mean...how would you attach it? I've seen it on wood on occasion. Being a toolmaker, I suspect copper alloy would do little in the way of toxicity to warn off marine growth. It's inception to boats was for worms, not growth...and that was because it was the highest tech metal of the time it was discovered around 8000BC and ships sheathed with it in the early to mid 1700's. Nickel was discovered mid 1800's and mistaken form silver. Actual sheeting was used but not by ships in the mid 1900's.
Its the other binders and chemicals in bottom paint that in combination to copper solids allows it to be affective.
There seems way too much hoopla about copper granulate paints. If you want any bottom paint to be more effective, use your boat. I would guess that a boat that moves every day probably has over 50% less growth over time.

[Jim Cate]

If copper sheathing is so effective against growth, I wonder why James Cook was forced to careen his vessels so many times to remove said growth? There are many references to this practice.

Jim

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I always read the Copper Coat threads to maybe gain some knowledge fir where the time comes that I may consider it. But, for the most part I don't think I get much out it because out of 100 post there might be 2 from people with use experience and 30 for someone saying it doesn't work in the Bay over and over.

It's pretty much a copper epoxy gun thread.

What I find interesting about the 'coppercoat' threads, and what convinced me to spend the money to try it, is that in all the threads, of those who are speaking from first hand experience, who have actually tried it, they still have it on their boats. Whilst there are a lot of people who say it 'doesn't work', in almost all situations (I recall just one to the contrary), those who are against are either quoting a friend, or some other third hand story, or posting pictures of a boat with lots of fouling of a friends or clients boat that looks like it's sat in the water for 5 years.

The vast majority of people who use it are reporting positive results and comments such as won't be going back to traditional antifouls.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

If copper sheathing is so effective against growth, I wonder why James Cook was forced to careen his vessels so many times to remove said growth? There are many references to this practice.

Jim

I think you will find Jim that James Cook was not adverse to sheathed vessels, though he does express somewhere a reluctance for long term exploring due to the difficulty in carrying out repairs when not having appropriate facilities. It is thought his ship Endeavour was sheathed in wood, not copper. I don't think you will find anywhere that he is specifically against copper sheathed vessels.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id...athing&f=false

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

I see no mention of free test panels on the CopperCoatUSA web site.

Edit: I have e-mailed CopperCoat about this. We'll see if the the offer is real or not and if it is, if it is extended to an industry professional.

Got an e-mail today from Jim Edwards of CopperCoat USA, saying that if I provide a credit card to cover shipping, test panels are available. So I gave the necessary info and asked for two panels. Assuming I get them, I will perform an ongoing side-by-side test here in the Estuary, where one panel gets regular (I'm thinking quarterly) cleanings and the other will be a control. I will, of course, post pix here as the test progresses.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I think you will find Jim that James Cook was not adverse to sheathed vessels, though he does express somewhere a reluctance for long term exploring due to the difficulty in carrying out repairs when not having appropriate facilities. It is thought his ship Endeavour was sheathed in wood, not copper. I don't think you will find anywhere that he is specifically against copper sheathed vessels.

Not at all what I was getting at, RC. I believe that his ships, and most of t he worlds ocean going vessels at t he time were indeed coppered. My point is that the copper did not prevent biofouling. It was there to keep Terado worms and all their brethren from eating the timbers, and for that it worked. Some issues with wasting iron fastenings and rudder fittings due to dissimilar metals and so on, but it was common pratice... as was careening to scrape the mess of growth that clung to the copper sheathing.

Jim

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Not at all what I was getting at, RC. I believe that his ships, and most of t he worlds ocean going vessels at t he time were indeed coppered. My point is that the copper did not prevent biofouling. It was there to keep Terado worms and all their brethren from eating the timbers, and for that it worked. Some issues with wasting iron fastenings and rudder fittings due to dissimilar metals and so on, but it was common pratice... as was careening to scrape the mess of growth that clung to the copper sheathing.

Jim

But, this is not correct. Yes, it did prevent Terado worms. It's purpose was also to 'reduce' though not totally prevent fouling. And it was 'some' issues of iron bolts and other steel issues, there were very significant problems with it during the 1700's. And copper Sheathing was not common within merchant fleets as it was too expensive. The Navy's had far few concerns around the cost.

The Introduction and Use of Copper Sheathing - A History | Mark Staniforth - Academia.edu

This book gives a good history on it. As does even the wiki read

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_sheathing

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Got an e-mail today from Jim Edwards of CopperCoat USA, saying that if I provide a credit card to cover shipping, test panels are available. So I gave the necessary info and asked for two panels. Assuming I get them, I will perform an ongoing side-by-side test here in the Estuary, where one panel gets regular (I'm thinking quarterly) cleanings and the other will be a control. I will, of course, post pix here as the test progresses.

Now, dont go jumping on me for asking why would you clean it quarterly, or is that what you recommnd with yachts in your area?

[Muckle Flugga]

Interesting recent experience to throw into the mix. Attached is a photo of my hull after a recent two and a half month stint in a high fouling Asian marina (Thailand). The dynaplate pictured foreground was whistle clean prior to this. In the background you can see the growth on the propshaft, each around 1cm thick. Not one single barnacle or other growth whatsoever apart from thin slime near the waterline on the coppercoat. This is a recent complete reapplication, but my previous lot was just beginning to lose efficiency after nearly a decade afloat in many areas of the world and from equatorial to high latitude.

As I have said previously and agree with other posters: coppercoat is marginally less efficient than the best ablatives, but its ability to be maintained in the water makes it ideal for long periods without hauling and long distance blue water applications.

I find it an excellent product overall.

The interesting comparison is shown in the other attached photo. It is of my lightning grounding grid which I use in tropical areas. Prior to being in the water for those two and a half months in a high fouling marina, it was likewise shiny clean, and is made of pure copper. It was exactly as fouled as the dynaplate, to a depth of a little over a centimeter on all surfaces, and took half an hour of scraping and brushing to clean to the point you see in the photograph, still not fully clean. I am afraid I don't have a photo of it prior to cleaning. Anyhow, interestinlgly the coppercoat did markedly better than pure copper!

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Interesting recent experience to throw into the mix. Attached is a photo of my hull after a recent two and a half month stint in a high fouling Asian marina (Thailand). The dynaplate pictured foreground was whistle clean prior to this. In the background you can see the growth on the propshaft, each around 1cm thick. Not one single barnacle or other growth whatsoever apart from thin slime near the waterline on the coppercoat. This is a recent complete reapplication, but my previous lot was just beginning to lose efficiency after nearly a decade afloat in many areas of the world and from equatorial to high latitude.

As I have said previously and agree with other posters: coppercoat is marginally less efficient than the best ablatives, but its ability to be maintained in the water makes it ideal for long periods without hauling and long distance blue water applications.

I find it an excellent product overall.

The interesting comparison is shown in the other attached photo. It is of my lightning grounding grid which I use in tropical areas. Prior to being in the water for those two and a half months in a high fouling marina, it was likewise shiny clean, and is made of pure copper. It was exactly as fouled as the dynaplate, to a depth of a little over a centimeter on all surfaces, and took half an hour of scraping and brushing to clean to the point you see in the photograph, still not fully clean. I am afraid I don't have a photo of it prior to cleaning. Anyhow, interestinlgly the coppercoat did markedly better than pure copper!

Very interesting MF.. What are these two pictures off? Like, what are they for?

[lateral]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Got an e-mail today from Jim Edwards of CopperCoat USA, saying that if I provide a credit card to cover shipping, test panels are available. So I gave the necessary info and asked for two panels. Assuming I get them, I will perform an ongoing side-by-side test here in the Estuary, where one panel gets regular (I'm thinking quarterly) cleanings and the other will be a control. I will, of course, post pix here as the test progresses.

Hmmm, well done. Looking forward to another real time test!
And, a panel or two of other types maybe?

I launched my boat 6 weeks ago, into the marina, along with a hard bottomed inflatable tied beside.
Boat has copper/ epoxy home brew. Rib has nothing. (Entered the water pristine)
Just cleaned the rib- Had 3" of weed pretty much even all over + hard worms (calcified) Juvenile minute (barnacles?) just starting.
Boat just has slime; weed starting where the bottom of keel couldn't be sanded. Chalk and cheese.

I coated my boat with Cu/epoxy primarily because I wanted a 100% solids epoxy barrier coat. If it helped as an antifoul, great, if not Petit would go over it. Interesting so far.
Also, great to see our ocean is still capable of such colonization. The rib was like an anode, unbelievable. (There's a thought!)

DIY brew =20Kg of Cu powder in 10l of epoxy. Rolled thinly; wet on tack; 3x.
Keel 6x
Cu=$300 Epoxy=$150; continuously stirred. BTW, it was hard work.
I wanted a barrier coat so water based epoxy was ruled out from the beginning.

I am curious to the long term outcome as I have read some quite strongly worded reports either way on personal experiences. If it does work satisfactorily for me, there are many possibilities why it hasn't for some.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Very interesting MF.. What are these two pictures off? Like, what are they for?

A dynaplate is one alternative for SSB grounding. It is composed of tens of thousands of tiny bronze spheres closely bonded together, such that the water passes through them, and provides a several square meter surface area for grounding, in only a few square centimeters real estate. I have long wondered whether the coppercoat itself would enhance that grounding.

In any case the other is a large copper lattice I had made in Scotland around 7 years ago, by a lightning protection company. The fat cable you see coming off it ends in a very large alligator clip which is clipped to the cap shroud if I am in a stormy anchorage or similar, with the lattice hung off in the water beside the boat. The idea is that it will encourage the strike to avoid the main hull and other equipment.

What is of interest to me and to this discussion, especially in light of recent comments concerning historic use of pure copper plating, is that the pure copper bands of the lightning shield/grounding, in the same water for the same time as the coppercoat, was completely coated in growth, with the coppercoat coming off absolutely clean. I have no personal understanding of the difference, though perhaps a clue might be in the fact that the coppercoat was immediately covered in cuprous oxide, whereas the pure copper, not so much.