Copper Nickel antifouling

R

RobertW

New Member
Joined
21 Sep 2009
Messages
2
Visit site
As the owner of a Lagoon 380 Catamaran and having visited the Southampton Boat Show on Friday, I was very interested in the Cunitec (coppernickel antifoul) stand. And whilst expensive, if it does what the maker claims it potentially represents a huge saving with annual lift outs and conventional antifoul. I would be very interested to hear from anyone with experience the product, it is claimed to be very different to coppercoat in that it is an antifoul coating consisting of an adhesive binder layer coated with a copper nickel alloy. See www.cunitec.com.
Has anyone any idea of the amount of preparation involved, and is it as good as it sounds.
 
I too am interested. The process is different to the other products available as the copper nickel nickel powder is sprayed onto the previously applied wet epoxy. They say no sanding is needed to re expose the copper each year as with the copper/ epoxy mixes.
I was told at the show that the guarantee period is 2 years, I asked why only 2 and was told that ' as everybody else only offers 2 years we did not see the point of offering more' !! I walked away thinking if I had faith in my product and it was applied by trained representatives I would be offering a longer period. Perhaps as it is a new product they do not actually know.
I would like to see some testimonials first, but it does look promissing.
 
RobertW said:
As the owner of a Lagoon 380 Catamaran and having visited the Southampton Boat Show on Friday, I was very interested in the Cunitec (coppernickel antifoul) stand. And whilst expensive, if it does what the maker claims it potentially represents a huge saving with annual lift outs and conventional antifoul. I would be very interested to hear from anyone with experience the product, it is claimed to be very different to coppercoat in that it is an antifoul coating consisting of an adhesive binder layer coated with a copper nickel alloy. See www.cunitec.com.
Has anyone any idea of the amount of preparation involved, and is it as good as it sounds.
Click to expand...

I have a cat too and researched the alternatives some time ago when working in the industry. For some applications there is merit in coppercoat or copperbot as it used to be called but it is not as effective as conventional antifoul. What it does do is avoid the necessity to re apply every year. I see no reason why a cupro-nickel alloy should be any better than copper and several reasons why it should not be as good.
Lets face it. Now that we have lost TBT from our armoury we have had to fall back on copper. The effectiveness of any antifouling is the amout of copper and how fast it leaches. The quicker it leaches the better the anti-fouling IMHO. Thats why there is little that can beat expensive but soft fully erodable preperations like micron IN THE SHORT TERM. There are then semi-erodable and hard racing types that can be sanded down each year to present a new surface but are less effective, then such as copperbot which seems to work very well and is comparable to the latter and lasts longer but still needs a light sanding periodically. Good I think if your cruising ground and usage is not in the "heavy fouling" catagory and particularly useful if like me you dry out in mud that erodes Micron etc very quickly. But on to this stuff.... Cupro-nickel is a fairly hard alloy and certainly wont erode as fast as copper on its own. This would seem to me to mean that it will be less effective as an antifoul but will certainly last longer. When the copper does eventually leach out of the surface, as it must, it will surely need sanding down to expose fresh copper. Personally I can think of no good reason why it is an improvement over copperbot but I am an engineer not a chemist...
VIC....VIC..... Where are you old son??? Do you agree???
 
I also had a chat with the chap on the Cunitec stand at sibs and had quite a long and in-depth conversation about his product and the other products on the market. Cunitec is basically the same as “Cuprotect” from Ecosea, the binder is a different but the CuNi granuals/powder is identical as is the preparation and installation. Cunitec is a new company and the product, while tested in a few locations at the time of the boat show it had only been applied to one boat (owned by the owner of the company).

I would suggest you have a google for “Ecosea” and “Cuprotect”.

I see no reason why this product would be any better or worse than “Coppercoat” but personally I feel that lots of companies have come and gone in this market while Coppercoat continues and there must be a reason for that…
 
boatmike said:
For some applications there is merit in coppercoat or copperbot as it used to be called ... particularly useful if like me you dry out in mud that erodes Micron etc very quickly.
Click to expand...

Coppercoat specifically says it's unsuitable for mud berths. I've no reason to suppose it doesn't do what it says on the tin if used as it says on the tin, but my experience of it is that it just doesn't work on mud and I recently gave up and put conventional antifoul over the top.

I also reckon that the annual rub down was more work than putting on conventional antifoul!
 
I think the biggest problem and one that all the products share is how effective the epoxy primer is going to be ie if that doesn't stick to the hull then the cupro-nickel will come away with it. So will the applicator blame a "wet" hull, new boat application porbably best. I still think it likely that an annual scrub will be required to remove a build up of slime and weed. How long the copper will last is anyones guess but I don't see it needing abrading at anytime in its life as it is a surface coating and not contained in the epoxy like coppercoat etc. so it down to how long befor it is erroded. As an aside I treated my Hydrovane rudder with ecoseas first product a copper sheet in an attempt to evaluate it within a couple of months I had a large growth of weed and slime but no barnacles and after a couple of attempts at cleaning off and even sanding down to bright copper it kept reoccuring so I have never been convinced about the effectiveness of copper in relation to preventing weed growth.
 
Stemar said:
Coppercoat specifically says it's unsuitable for mud berths. I've no reason to suppose it doesn't do what it says on the tin if used as it says on the tin, but my experience of it is that it just doesn't work on mud and I recently gave up and put conventional antifoul over the top.

I also reckon that the annual rub down was more work than putting on conventional antifoul!
Click to expand...

Well I am not a user so can't comment. I thought one claim was it was OK in mud but maybe I'm wrong. Frankly I have not found much that improves on Uno for mud. Needs doing every year but does not cost as much as Micron which lasts about a month in Fareham creek mud.
 
I was also interested but it is expensive and has only been used on 2 boats so far and these haven't been used for any length of time. There is therefore no experience or history behind this supplier. If it was cheaper than coppercoat there might be some interest. Like coppercoat it seems to need a lift and spray every year.
 
Copper and ultrasonic

I too asked most of the same questions as the rest of you. I did last year as well from the two competeing copper based suppliers. Both semed very expensive, one insisted on doing the application themselves, each claimed 10 years protection for the boat, but they would only guarantee it for two years. Every check I have made confirms the suspicions you all raise. I have not yet found a satisfied user, and I have asked about eight. Not a lot I know, but they were consistent.

Somewhere in PBO last year there was an article about someone doing the epoxy version himself, aided by his wife, then someone else as well. Even after meticulous planning etc it was still an enormous effort and sounded impractical for most people. There has not been a follow-up article, as he promised, to say how effective it has been this year. Maybe there will be.

Slightly off thread, but still relevant I hope, I looked at the Ultra-Sonic stand, www.ultrasonic-antifouling.com. I had said on a previous thread I would check. The result was that all my questions were answered sensibly. No wild claims. Track record starting to look good. Roughly two thirds of the price of the copper versions. I know that the previous thread about this concluded that it was impossible, would not work, snake oil etc, However I am becoming more optimistic about it. It does use electricity of course, but a smallish solar panel would cover this while on moorings.

I have a catamaran so a big bottom. (the boat!!;)) Micron is expensive and hard to apply, particularly underneath, as I am no longer either healthy or fit. It also does not work well in Poole. Copper is really too dear for me and I am sceptical about it to say the least, so I am probably going to try the Ultrasonic approach.

Hope this helps the OP and his original question, even if only obliquely. Anyone else's thoughts or comparisons would be welcomed.

Mike
 
Wait and see!!

Seems like it might be best to leave it for a few years and see what happens, I'm sure that if it turns out to be as miraculous as claimed we will see plenty about it in the sailing press and forums. Thanks to everyone for their input.
cheers
Robertw
 
I am moored 10 metres away from another Twister, both on swinging moorings in Fareham Lake, Portsmouth.
He has Coppercoat, I have used Blakes cruising Performer.
It takes 3 months for my bottom to be so slimey that I am reduced in speed by 1knot.
I have already scrubbed this season and it is again heavy with slime.
His Coppercoat appears to be clean.
My aim is to try a micron type antifoul next seson, but do I need to strip all the existing antifoul off before changing?
 
The ultrasonic answer has been around for quite some time, at least 20 years ago I heard of it. Doesnt seem to have come along much, so I will definitely wait and see. I doubt very much it would work through my 1 7/8" wooden planking anyway!
One other thing why isnt it in use on commercial shipping, where antifouling costs are humongous?
 
ccscott49 said:
The ultrasonic answer has been around for quite some time, at least 20 years ago I heard of it. Doesnt seem to have come along much, so I will definitely wait and see. I doubt very much it would work through my 1 7/8" wooden planking anyway!
One other thing why isnt it in use on commercial shipping, where antifouling costs are humongous?
Click to expand...
While I have a wait and see attitude to the ultrasonic system, I suspect the real answer is that TBT is still allowed for commercial applications and it works.

Also I see from the FAQs that it doesn't work on mud berths, so no good for me - even if I could afford £800 and 1amp 24/7.
 
ccscott49 said:
The ultrasonic answer has been around for quite some time, at least 20 years ago I heard of it. Doesnt seem to have come along much, so I will definitely wait and see. I doubt very much it would work through my 1 7/8" wooden planking anyway!
One other thing why isnt it in use on commercial shipping, where antifouling costs are humongous?
Click to expand...

There are new technologies based on nano technology for shipping. I think there was an article in PBO. Certainly the QM2 has a new antifoul and is going faster and using less fuel since it was applied last November. They are not available to us yet.
 
Cupronickel

Hello, I joined this forum, because I live aboard, and because I want to answer this ? which has been discussed by several members here: why cupronickel hull coating in lieu of classic antifouling bottom paint? Hopefully, most of you know this already, but bottom paint is highly toxic to marine creatures and to water quality. TBT, a component now banned supposedly all over the world, is still in use in Mexico, South America, Asia, and no telling where else. It is highly poisonous to fish and to those of us who eat them.
Cupronickel hull coating has been in marine use since the 1960s, but was prohibitively expensive until Marine EcoCoatings, Inc brought to the market a patent-pending process for cost-effective application of this proven antifoulant to any type boat hull. Yes, it is more expensive than bottom paint, but it will pay for itself in cost-savings: no more haul-out charges for bottom maintenance; documented 25-29% reduction in fuel consumption for any boat compared to operation with now-obsolete bottom paints, and documented 5-10% increase in boat speed through the water at any given RPM or any given wind force in the case of sailboats.
Cupronickel has been approved as a bottom coating by racing associations in the USA, because it is simply a better antifouling method, and it is a real boon to both air and water environments: Air quality is improved due to 25-29% reduction in fuel consumption by internal combustion engines in motor vessels using Cupronickel antifouling compared to now-obsolete bottom paints, with concomitant 25-29% reduction in carbon footprint emitted from Cupronickel-proctected vessels, and water quaility is enhanced by cessation of use of toxic antifouling copper-based bottom paints.
Cupronickel is not paint. It does not contain copper, which the US EPA is restricting ever more stringently, or nickel. It is an alloy, that is, a new metal, produced at high temperatures in a 100% nitrogen atmosphere under great pressure, from copper and nickel, but no longer containing either of them. Cupronickel is unique in its antifouling capacity and in its benign effect on the marine environment.
Cupronickel has been in Marine use since the 1960s, and no one disputes its efficacy as an antifoulant, but our method of application is the first to allow private boat owners an affordable alternative to environmentally toxic alternatives. Please visit our website or contact me with any specific questions. FMR@MarineEcoCoatings.com
This is the only time I will post this information, and I do so as a public service, given that everyone wants to improve our air and water quality. I do not intend to abuse the privilege of posting here with commercial messages. This is intended to start a meaningful discussion of reasonable alternatives to nasty bottom paint. I would appreciate information about any other such alternatives anyone knows about.
DOCRIVERS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top