Coppercoat bottom paint

[bobconnie]

There is nothing that will STOP under growth, that is nothing that will not kill the oceans that it leachs into !! I know I dissagree with fast bottoms a lot ! but when hes right hes right !! I mostly like to get him going !LOL 40 n50 yrs ago I used stuff I don't even like to think about !! and if I could I would probaly still be useing it !! But even us OLD guys know we need to become more involved in the care of of our waters ! At home and thruout the world !! I guess ya could say Im sort of a backwards conservationist !! Just my 2 cents

[Roy M]

For the record, it's my neighbor's boat. It had been originally coated a couple years ago, then removed from the water in May to paint a 10 inch increase in the bottom paint. The work was performed by one of the most experienced yards in Southern California. The boat sat, mostly idle, for the last six months as the owners finalized their prep for cruising south. They noticed the rapid growth at the water line and took the boat to the yard for an inspection. On haulout, they saw the results you see in the photos. They feel that the growth was not difficult to remove, and will be using a hookah to clean their boat monthly while cruising. Still, I have never seen such a prodigious growth on a "freshly painted" bottom before. My own boat's bottom is in severe need of a haulout and paint, so I was obviously interested in their system when I first saw it six months ago.

[fstbttms]

There can be no doubt the amout of fouling depicted is pretty horrendous, regardless of where the boat lives or what anti fouling coating was on the bottom. I wonder though, how much fouling would accumulate between cleanings had the boat been serviced on a typical 3 or 4 week frequency.

[avb3]

You will notice a number of posts have been removed. Let's keep the discussion to the topic at hand, and not attacks on other members. Remember, moderators and Cruisers Forum take our 'Be Nice' rule seriously, and expect our posters to comply with that.

[Capt Phil]

San Diego harbor is very healthy IMO. We lived aboard for over 10 years and were amazed at how the bottom growth and the other marine life just exploded after the community got together and had a concerted effort to clean up the area. We went from having our bottom cleaned professionally every 3-4 months to every month. While we were cruising part of the time, mostly in Mexico, whenever we returned to our home port, we had to adjust the hull cleaning interval. Don't recall the bottom paint we used, (Trinidad Blue?) but it remained constant during the period on both our boats. It was gratifying to see the area coming back. When I was down on a charter a few weeks ago, the boat I was driving had a hugh number of fish under the hull all night. Phil

[Exile]

To fstbttms, Ewan, or others in the know, some basic questions from a relative noob:

1. Any recommendations to combat the increased fouling on bronze thru-hulls & props noted above? I used a product called "Prop Speed" once. Seemed to work for awhile, but very expensive & not sure it was worth it.

2. Used Pettit Trinidad SR the last time over a newly sandblasted hull with two barrier coats. Excellent results -- two years! (But it's time now). How do these non-ablative, hard epoxy paints work? Do they have ablatve properties or is it a process more similar to that described by Ewan re: Coppercoat?

3. Even if CC worked as well as a hard epoxy paint but no better, but it lasted 10 years vs. 1-2, wouldn't that, in itself, be better for the environment? Isn't it the ablative paints that are causing the enviro concerns?

Btw, after looking at info on the CC website & other (anecdotal) research, it appears that there have been several products over the years in the US with names similar to CC. I gather that the CC Co. we're talking about here is relatively new to the US market (why is that, btw?). Also worth noting is that there appears to be a very specific application process that is different from conventional AF paints in applying CC. Doesn't appear difficult, just different & specific. Seems like it might be easy to screw this up & not get the advertised results.

Comments? Always useful & much appreciated!

Dan

[Ewan Clark]

To Roy M – please do have your neighbour contact me (info@coppercoat.com) so that I can investigate this on his behalf, as I’d love to get to the bottom of this. I see that another post mentions that in this location it is necessary to clean boats every 4 weeks as the growth is so voracious, but even so, I’d like to research this incident.
To Jim Cate – there are several reasons why a surface of Coppercoat produces more cuprous oxide than a surface of copper pipe. Importantly you must remember that metals have different qualities according to their form – so powders react differently to solid sheets. As an example, copper is a good conductor of electricity, hence it is used in electrical wiring. But, if you take this wire, strip off the plastic (so you just left with the bare copper wire) and chop it up into tiny little bits (so that it becomes powder), and lump it all together in a pile, you can no longer pass a current through it. While copper conducts electricity, copper powder doesn’t. Magic hey! The key study into this was by Eduard Branley, back in about the 1880’s (from memory.) Remember also that the copper powder in Coppercoat is affected by the amines of the epoxy and the other ingredients present, and it is the interaction of these items (and the seawater) that provides the desired result. Consequently you cannot and should not expect copper pipe to perform in the same way that Coppercoat does – but as previously mentioned, the easy way to see this is simply to look at a copper earthing plate on a yacht which uses Coppercoat.
The purity level of the copper is also vital – the level and type of impurity has a huge impact on the rate of cuprous oxide production. For example, we could make a treatment of Coppercoat last longer by adding nickel, as this slows the breakdown of the copper. But, the consequentially slower release of cuprous oxide has an adverse affect on anti-fouling performance. By using the purest copper available we can manufacture a coating that produces the maximum amount of cuprous oxide – essential for best performance.
I don't mean to turn this thread into a boring science lesson, but hopefully the above is useful.

[wingNwing]

Originally Posted by Ewan Clark

... there are several reasons why a surface of Coppercoat produces more cuprous oxide than a surface of copper pipe. Importantly you must remember that metals have different qualities according to their form – so powders react differently to solid sheets. As an example, copper is a good conductor of electricity, hence it is used in electrical wiring. But, if you take this wire, strip off the plastic (so you just left with the bare copper wire) and chop it up into tiny little bits (so that it becomes powder), and lump it all together in a pile, you can no longer pass a current through it. While copper conducts electricity, copper powder doesn’t. Magic hey! The key study into this was by Eduard Branley, back in about the 1880’s (from memory.) ...

Ewan, this is kind of intriguing. We had a previous generation of copper epoxy paint on our hull when we got the boat 13 years ago (I don't know what manufacturer becuase it was done by the previous owner). That product caused the hull to give nonsense readings on the moisture meter, pegged the meter everywhere, presumably that paint was conductive? (They resorted to the old-fashioned tap-it-with-a-mallet to listen for voids approach for the survey instead.) Would the same be true of our newly Coppercoated hull?

Clean marina rules here in the Chesapeake forbid divers from cleaning a hull painted with ablative paint while in the slip; anything that could leave a cloud/plume of paint. (I think the rules were written incorrectly, but that's a separate issue.) We'd have to go anchor out somewhere nearby and let him scrub, then go back to the slip, quite a PITA. We're looking forward to a more straightforward process now! BTW, we've been back in the water almost 6 weeks, in a creek known for its sliminess. This would be our normal cleaning cycle in this season; let's see what the diver says about growth on our new paint.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Exile

1. Any recommendations to combat the increased fouling on bronze thru-hulls & props noted above?

Yes, have your hull cleaned frequently.

Originally Posted by Exile

2. Used Pettit Trinidad SR the last time over a newly sandblasted hull with two barrier coats. Excellent results -- two years!

Honestly? A properly applied, properly maintained Trinidad bottom should last 3+ years. Relatively frequent, gentle cleanings are the way to achieve this. Think about your savings over 10 years if you only had to haul for paint 3 times as opposed to 5.

Originally Posted by Exile

How do these non-ablative, hard epoxy paints work? Do they have ablatve properties or is it a process more similar to that described by Ewan re: Coppercoat?

From the West Marine advisor:

Copolymer/Ablative Paints

Copolymer paints release biocide at a constant controlled rate throughout their lives, wearing away or “ablating” much like a bar of soap. Paint wears off faster in higher drag areas on the hull and appendages. These paints work well in high-growth areas and continue to be effective after haul-out and relaunch. Copolymer paints, such as West Marine PCA Gold, Interlux Micron Extra and Pettit Horizons, offer true multi-season protection, lasting as long as there is a reasonable coating thickness. Because they expose new biocide until the coating is worn completely away, additional coats add to their longevity. We recommend a covering of two or three coats on the first application. Copolymer paints with anti-slime additives are best for heavy fouling areas.

Hard “Contact Leaching” Paints

If you keep your boat in the water year round you are most likely a candidate for a modified epoxy paint that prevents growth by leaching biocides upon contact with water. Contact leaching paint releases the biocide at a steadily decreasing rate, leaving the hard coating of the original thickness at season’s end. Higher copper content, rather than the type of paint binder as with ablative paints, generally means greater effective performance in this paint type. Modified epoxy paints adhere tenaciously to most surfaces, and can be applied over most types of paints. On the down side, they lose effectiveness when the boat is stored out of water.

The West Advisor: Anti Fouling Paint

Originally Posted by Exile

3. Even if CC worked as well as a hard epoxy paint but no better, but it lasted 10 years vs. 1-2, wouldn't that, in itself, be better for the environment? Isn't it the ablative paints that are causing the enviro concerns?

In terms of the total amount of copper introduced into the enivironment, Coppercoat is probably better. But at what cost? If it cannot provide adequate anti fouling protection in your region (and the evidence seems to indicate, as with traditional anti fouling paints, that it is no "magic bullet" that works great everywhere), then your boat's performance, both under power and sail is reduced and fuel consumption and carbon emissions are increased.

Ablative paints are frequently pointed out as being worse polluters but I have never seen any study showing that this is the case. All copper-based anti fouling paints release their biocides into the water 24/7/365, until the biocide is all gone. But it is easy to target ablatives because these paints will frequently "plume" when cleaned and to the layman and other water quality policy makers, this means they are committing more copper to the environment than other types of anti fouling paint. An assumption not based on actual evidence.

[Ewan Clark]

To wingNwing - your Coppercoat treatment will not affect the readings of a moisture meter such as the Sovereign meter. The meter reads to a greater depth than the coatings thickness. Many (but not all!) marine surveyors understand this and therefore do not remove any of the coating before taking readings.

To Fstbttms - ablative paints are deemed worse polluters purely because they tend to leach their biocides at a greater rate. Before a pesticide such as an anti-foul can be ratified for sale, the leach rate must be tested and proven to be within the legal levels set for that location. Coppercoat has a leach rate of 49 micrograms of copper per cm2 after 30 days, which as a general guide is about a tenth of the level allowed in most Developed World nations (and at least half that of the majority of most ablative paints). This helps to explain why non-ablative epoxy based systems are deemed to be less polluting.

One of the advantages of a non-ablative system is that when it is scrubbed, only the marine growth comes off, not the growth plus a cloud of biocide enriched paint (as happens when an ablative system is scrubbed).

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Ewan Clark

One of the advantages of a non-ablative system is that when it is scrubbed, only the marine growth comes off, not the growth plus a cloud of biocide enriched paint (as happens when an ablative system is scrubbed).

True, but only to a point. Hard paints, while they do not "plume", do release some copper when cleaned. Studies have shown that there is a spike in acute copper levels near boats that are undergoing in-water hull cleaning, regardless of whether the paints are ablative or hard types (Not referring, of course, to copper-loaded epoxies such as Coppercoat.) This is one of the reason it is important to always use the least abrasive cleaning media possible when cleaning your hull.

[Ewan Clark]

Yes indeed, fstbttms, I'd agree with that.

[Mark Johnson]

The concept of totally encapsulating copper powder in epoxy resin, so that the vast majority can never come in contact with the water, and then expecting this small amount of powder on the surface to act as an antifouling, is a totally flawed concept, and scientific "dead end street"!

It "might" work for a short while as an antifouling... "a little", (in low fouling areas), and is a useful HARD, and opaque outer surface, for one off daysailors and dinghys that need their epoxy glassed skin protected from the Sun's UVs, but it is just not a good antifouling alternative.

These products CAN in fact conduct small amounts of electricity, which then attracts barnacles far more than bare fiberglass does. (They love the small current)... If this is the case, these products can also refuse to be painted over without the paint peeling, (if in the vicinity of underwatewr metals).

Also, the critters can grab hold FAR better to these products than on bottom paint! With paint, the surface of the paint lets go when you scrape the critters off.

The "Copper loaded epoxy resin bottom" concept was the rage in the 80s and early 90s. This is not new at all! It was very popular with many of my multihull boatbuilder friends. Since it cost us so much to haul, and opportunities to haul were rare, due to our width, the incentive to find an alternative was strong.

There were half a dozen brands at the time, and I chose one that had recently switched to a Copper flake. (a HUGE mistake)! All of my friends soon bottom painted over their different versions of this copper/epoxy stuff, citing it as totally ineffective! (Requiring scrubs every week or so)... Wet sanding a new surface to any copper/epoxy product, (while under water, using SCUBA), can not be done. I tried.

Mine was conducting enough self created current, that when I painted over it, the paint peeled right away, (in the areas near metal parts), even isolated copper ones, like the lightning ground. After 3 failed bottom paint attempts, I ground off 15 mils of this stuff, and started over with a newly epoxied surface. THEN the bottom paint would stick!

15 years of cruising, and dozens of countries later, I still have no problem (with bottom paint).

As an avid environmentalist, I would love to see a less toxic and EFFECTIVE alternative come on the market, but this stuff is not it. It is based on an utterly flawed concept, and common sense should make that clear.

Just like the 8 or so similar products that preceded these folks, they will be belly up soon enough, at least as long as they continue to market it as an antifouling, rather than a tough UV barrier for homemade trailerable boats and dinghies.

Fingers crossed for a real solution...

P.S. One small correction to previous posts... Copper sheathing of old ships was to deter worms, not barnacles! They seem to love sheet copper as soon as the surface turns color... They certainly did on my copper ground plate.

BTW... I now go 5.5 years between bottom jobs, using multicoats of ablative bottom paint, and performing regular wipedowns (with a soft gloved hand) during the summer season. Using the hardest and least ablating of these types of paint, the plume when wiping is very small. I still need to wipe slime, but hard growth remains at "0" for this 5.5 year period.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Yes, have your hull cleaned frequently.

Ha! Yes, agreed. Just thought I'd check if there's a worthwhile alternative for props & thru-hulls.


Honestly? A properly applied, properly maintained Trinidad bottom should last 3+ years. Relatively frequent, gentle cleanings are the way to achieve this. Think about your savings over 10 years if you only had to haul for paint 3 times as opposed to 5.

Wow, good info. Thought it was designed for only 2 yrs. YMMV, of course. My bottom paint actually still looks pretty good, but I was concerned about any wearing away to the barrier coats. I'll have my trusty diver take a careful look next time. At around $250/gal. for Trinidad SR, would be nice if it went another year.



From the West Marine advisor:

Copolymer/Ablative Paints

Copolymer paints release biocide at a constant controlled rate throughout their lives, wearing away or “ablating” much like a bar of soap. Paint wears off faster in higher drag areas on the hull and appendages. These paints work well in high-growth areas and continue to be effective after haul-out and relaunch. Copolymer paints, such as West Marine PCA Gold, Interlux Micron Extra and Pettit Horizons, offer true multi-season protection, lasting as long as there is a reasonable coating thickness. Because they expose new biocide until the coating is worn completely away, additional coats add to their longevity. We recommend a covering of two or three coats on the first application. Copolymer paints with anti-slime additives are best for heavy fouling areas.

Hard “Contact Leaching” Paints

If you keep your boat in the water year round you are most likely a candidate for a modified epoxy paint that prevents growth by leaching biocides upon contact with water. Contact leaching paint releases the biocide at a steadily decreasing rate, leaving the hard coating of the original thickness at season’s end. Higher copper content, rather than the type of paint binder as with ablative paints, generally means greater effective performance in this paint type. Modified epoxy paints adhere tenaciously to most surfaces, and can be applied over most types of paints. On the down side, they lose effectiveness when the boat is stored out of water.

The West Advisor: Anti Fouling Paint

Great info. Sorry, should have researched myself.



In terms of the total amount of copper introduced into the enivironment, Coppercoat is probably better. But at what cost? If it cannot provide adequate anti fouling protection in your region (and the evidence seems to indicate, as with traditional anti fouling paints, that it is no "magic bullet" that works great everywhere), then your boat's performance, both under power and sail is reduced and fuel consumption and carbon emissions are increased.

I'll be following any additional anecdotal or other evidence re: the effectiveness of Coopercoat in the US with great interest.

Ablative paints are frequently pointed out as being worse polluters but I have never seen any study showing that this is the case. All copper-based anti fouling paints release their biocides into the water 24/7/365, until the biocide is all gone. But it is easy to target ablatives because these paints will frequently "plume" when cleaned and to the layman and other water quality policy makers, this means they are committing more copper to the environment than other types of anti fouling paint. An assumption not based on actual evidence.

Thanks again for your time providing this valuable info.

Dan

[Mark Johnson]

We had a major 10 week haulout this summer, to re vinyl coat nets, do the bottom, and AwlGrip under the wings.

After 5,5 years since the previous painting in Trinidad, this was the condition of our ablative bottom, seconds after hauling, and before power washing. Some slime, no hair, and "0" hard growth.

The only reason we couldn't put it off another year, was that the bare hull was ghosting through in a few spots, and I didn't want the UVs to get to the bare epoxy/glass skin of our "one off" boat. Otherwise...

How much? We put 3 coats everywhere, except the transoms, stems, keels, chines, foils, true WL, and keel. (They all get 5)

We used all of our 5 gallon can of ABC# 3 ablative, and then some. Yes that's a lot, on a 34' boat! Thing is, this is GOOD relatively hard ablative paint, and being commercial, and sold in 5 gal cans, costs < $80/gal! Even with over $100 in shipping, and our technique requiring so much paint, it is the best deal in town. Hauling 21' wide multihulls is expensive!

Is it any good? Steve Dashew uses it... His boat was being painted within sight of mine.

Where to get it??? Johnson's Supply, in Pensacola FL. (Blue, black, or red) And be sure it is not an old can!

Months and 3 gentile scrubs later... I can say it is not quite as hard and slow ablating as the stuff we put on in Trinidad, but it IS quite a good antifouling. It is probably the slowest wearing that is available in the US. This feature, and the willingness to "gently" wipe your hull regularly, (during the high growth months), is how you go over 5 years between hauls.