RichardS
N/A
It's over. I believe that the relevant forumites have now accepted that Coppercoat erodes over a period of 10's of years rather than 1000's of years. Everything else was fluff.
Richard
I Can’t Believe It’s Not Coppercoat!
- Thread starter BoatingBeginner
- Start date
It's over. I believe that the relevant forumites have now accepted that Coppercoat erodes over a period of 10's of years rather than 1000's of years. Everything else was fluff.
Richard
macd
Well-Known Member
I believe that it precisely what they are suggesting, and was told as much at a show a few years ago. Incidentally, whatever the prescribed ratio, it increases as the epoxy dries, since the water in the resin evaporates.
Sticky Stuff
Well-Known Member
It seems the record for so called wonder antifoulings specifically for slow moving and often not moving yachts from the big antifouling producers is already very big and extremely positive, in fact I have been led to believe that one of the big antifoul makers is so sure of the performance of their product they even give a 3 year fouling performance guarantee to any vessels over 30 m in length.
If you enquire about the guarantee they say they could not issue a guarantee certificates to thousands of small users, it would be to time consuming, also they say to qualify for the guarantee the application has to be correct and documented by a professional yard with the knowledge and skills to record such information.
I for one would be very confident in a product and a company that is so confident in their product they issue a guarantee even if I don't qualify for the guarantee myself.
Although there is a fair amount of positive information about some of the copper Epoxy systems and their ability to keep shell growth away there are also many cases where it has not worked at all and it has been over-coated with conventional antifouling.
Speaking to the antifoul people at the shows, some condemn the system outright but others give it some credence as it does have copper in the mix so as long as it gets exposed it should work to some degree, however most of them believe it to be a 50/50 split between positive and negative and say they are constantly answering the question ' Can I over coat my copper epoxy with conventional antifouling'. (they would say that though !)
Having said that I am sure the copper epoxy suppliers will say the results are far better than that. (but they would say that wouldn't they)
My view is that if your antifouling doesn't work and you don't like it, say 'oh well' to yourself and try another.. it has cost a few quid but hey ho !
If you don't like your Copper system its not so easy to say 'hey ho' it may have cost you a grand !
There are so many variables with every application .... will you get a good one ??
Sticky Stuff
Well-Known Member
You will find that Epoxy has an almost unmeasurable erosion rate in salt or fresh water even over 100 years and beyond and the only way to expose new copper to any useful degree is to physically sand the surface. Even sanding Epoxy is not easy .. it becomes very hard over time, then add to this sanding upside-down.. back breaking work.It's over. I believe that the relevant forumites have now accepted that Coppercoat erodes over a period of 10's of years rather than 1000's of years. Everything else was fluff.
Richard
Accepting that it erodes over 10 years is still a very tall story and I'm sure they would even like people to go away believing this was the case.
All the rest is fluff ...
They could look into using resins that are proven to erode rather than epoxy that doesn't to any useful degree but that then makes it an antifouling...
There seem to be some great resins available now to antifoul producers some even that do allow for very effective long term protection.
Sticky Stuff
Well-Known Member
Yes the water in an epoxy evaporates ..... leaving the resin percentage lower but not to any great volumes .... what are we talking ??
Their tech data should tell us as it should state wet film thickness and then dry film thickness. 100 microns to 80 microns would of course be 20% water in the mix but I suspect it will be far lower than 20 %
Perhaps AMC can enlighten us to the typical Wet and dry film thickness measurements, easier still to save it being worked out they could just tell us the water content !
10% or less ??
if this is relevant traditional antifoulings seem to have as much as 45-50% solvent added so their prescribed ratio of copper will increase by way more ! ...
In reality the only thing that seems to be important is what is left after everything has evaporated for both product types.
Their tech data should tell us as it should state wet film thickness and then dry film thickness. 100 microns to 80 microns would of course be 20% water in the mix but I suspect it will be far lower than 20 %
Perhaps AMC can enlighten us to the typical Wet and dry film thickness measurements, easier still to save it being worked out they could just tell us the water content !
10% or less ??
if this is relevant traditional antifoulings seem to have as much as 45-50% solvent added so their prescribed ratio of copper will increase by way more ! ...
In reality the only thing that seems to be important is what is left after everything has evaporated for both product types.
RichardS
N/A
This just doesn't make sense StickStuff.
You make a technical observation about Coppercoat. Ewan points out that there is a different explanation. You seem to accept Ewan's explanation. I suggest that we are all now on the same page. You take us back to square one.
As you are a new forumite, I have to ask whether you are connected in some way to a conventional antifoul manufacturer or distributor?
Richard
Neeves
Well-Known Member
So why not tell us who the AF company is? You imply you have investigated to ask them about the gurantee, so what's the secret?
I'm like Richard, intrigued.
Jonathan
Last edited:
Tranona
Well-Known Member
What you say may well be true - however, none of the mainstream AF suppliers to the yachting market are promoting long life anti fouling - with or without guarantee. The all promote one year application with frantic promotions every spring. Why would they do otherwise when they have a population hooked on the idea of annual painting of the bottom together with the inevitable preparation required to be effective.
The only effective way of escaping this vicious cycle with a reasonable record of long term success is Coppercoat. Lots of other products have been offered over the years but none have had any long term success either technically or commercially. So you can understand a reluctance to be a guinea pig for any new wonder product that has not proved itself in comparable situations.
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Just a remark.
From observation it seems that Coppercoat is reaching some sort of critical mass of users - I notice more and more boats with it. So I guess conventional a/f manufacturers may be getting worried - not only do they lose one head-to-head sale to CC, but maybe 10 or more years of follow-up sales. If I were writing their business plans, I'd be looking to how to counter CC's appeal, either by guerrilla action or - better - by formulating conventional (or unconventional) gloop that actually works long-term.
From observation it seems that Coppercoat is reaching some sort of critical mass of users - I notice more and more boats with it. So I guess conventional a/f manufacturers may be getting worried - not only do they lose one head-to-head sale to CC, but maybe 10 or more years of follow-up sales. If I were writing their business plans, I'd be looking to how to counter CC's appeal, either by guerrilla action or - better - by formulating conventional (or unconventional) gloop that actually works long-term.
EwanClark
Well-Known Member
Thank you Richard - I too believed we'd covered this. But for the avoidance of doubt, in the manufacture of Coppercoat we use a relatively weak resin that slowly breaks down, exposing fresh copper. But of course, I can only talk for Coppercoat, not any other system.
As for water content, this is different between the two elements (of base and hardener), but when combined (but before the copper is added) you are looking at about 45%. If we used a resin with water content of less than 10% (for example) it would not work as an anti-foul at all. The ratio of copper to resin would be too low, and in all likely hood the erosion rate of the resin would be too slow also. Indeed, using an inappropriate resin (such as one with a solids content of 90% or more) is exactly the mistake that the manufacturers of failed/discontinued systems such as CopperPlus, CopperGuard, etc made.
It is correct to say that there are resins that hardly erode at all over decades, while there are others that do erode. Naturally we use one that does erode, all be it at a slow rate of approximately 5 microns per year (as stated on the Coppercoat website).
If anyone has a particular question relating to Coppercoat, please do feel free to call our offices on 01258 861059 as I often go weeks at a time without logging on to this forum. Too many forums, too little time!
Sticky Stuff - if you PM me with your name and telephone number I'll happily give you a call to personally answer any additional questions you have.
As for water content, this is different between the two elements (of base and hardener), but when combined (but before the copper is added) you are looking at about 45%. If we used a resin with water content of less than 10% (for example) it would not work as an anti-foul at all. The ratio of copper to resin would be too low, and in all likely hood the erosion rate of the resin would be too slow also. Indeed, using an inappropriate resin (such as one with a solids content of 90% or more) is exactly the mistake that the manufacturers of failed/discontinued systems such as CopperPlus, CopperGuard, etc made.
It is correct to say that there are resins that hardly erode at all over decades, while there are others that do erode. Naturally we use one that does erode, all be it at a slow rate of approximately 5 microns per year (as stated on the Coppercoat website).
If anyone has a particular question relating to Coppercoat, please do feel free to call our offices on 01258 861059 as I often go weeks at a time without logging on to this forum. Too many forums, too little time!
Sticky Stuff - if you PM me with your name and telephone number I'll happily give you a call to personally answer any additional questions you have.
EwanClark
Well-Known Member
There are currently no restrictions on the fineness of the copper powder, but we are restricted as to the total volume. At the moment, the maximum amount of copper we can add is twice the weight of the resin. So, to every 1 kg of resin (the total weight of the hardener and base combined) we can add 2kg of copper powder. Of course, in addition to the quantity of powder added, the particle size, purity and morphology all play a role in the final performance of the coating.
The rules vary from country to country - the information above relates to the Coppercoat we sell here in the UK, in accordance with HSE requirements.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Why, as a matter of interest? What do "they" think would happen if you added more?
Sticky Stuff
Well-Known Member
Come on make up your minds :
Below are two statements from the website.
GRP Osmosis Protection
Coppercoat is based upon an inherently waterproof epoxy resin. As such, the application of Coppercoat helps to protect GRP vessels against osmotic attack.
Environmentally Friendly
Being epoxy based Coppercoat is classified as non-eroding and causes less harm to the environment than conventional anti-foul paints.
So 5 microns per year is the stated erosion rate even though it doesn't erode and its waterproof enough to be an osmosis barrier ...
So to get a 10 year system you would need to apply a total combined dry film thickness of 50 microns.
On the datasheet 250 dry microns are asked for or 4 roller coats at 360 microns wet combined so that = 90 microns wet per roller coat each drying out to 62 microns dry
Surely using the stated erosion rate of 5 microns the actual amount people are buying and applying is for a 45-50 year system is this right ?.
Am I being daft ?
Who's getting mixed up with the data me or the experts ?
Below are two statements from the website.
GRP Osmosis Protection
Coppercoat is based upon an inherently waterproof epoxy resin. As such, the application of Coppercoat helps to protect GRP vessels against osmotic attack.
Environmentally Friendly
Being epoxy based Coppercoat is classified as non-eroding and causes less harm to the environment than conventional anti-foul paints.
So 5 microns per year is the stated erosion rate even though it doesn't erode and its waterproof enough to be an osmosis barrier ...
So to get a 10 year system you would need to apply a total combined dry film thickness of 50 microns.
On the datasheet 250 dry microns are asked for or 4 roller coats at 360 microns wet combined so that = 90 microns wet per roller coat each drying out to 62 microns dry
Surely using the stated erosion rate of 5 microns the actual amount people are buying and applying is for a 45-50 year system is this right ?.
Am I being daft ?
Who's getting mixed up with the data me or the experts ?
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
There does seem to be a degree of inconsistency in the claims made. I look forward to seeing a response.
Sticky Stuff
Well-Known Member
Clearly the product has some merits, there are plenty of examples out there showing good performance.
Is there any science behind it though or is it simply a case of mix some copper powder in some epoxy ? (which we now understand is not water soluble after curing).
Is this all as basic as get an epoxy resin with a low hardness rating (Shore D hardness I see is used on most epoxy data sheets) and add some copper powder ?
Perhaps some colloidal silica (the standard thickener sold by epoxy makers) could maybe be added to help suspend the copper in the resin ?
I suspect the only benefit of the water based epoxy is that it has no solvent so does not smell ! It seem to have been eliminated from the erosion equation.
If both water and/or Solvent are the simple carriers added to the resin to aid application and neither has any water or solvent content or effect when cured then I wonder what difference a solvent based epoxy (paint) would have compared to a water based epoxy ?
They seem only ever to compare water based with solvent free ..
Is there any science behind it though or is it simply a case of mix some copper powder in some epoxy ? (which we now understand is not water soluble after curing).
Is this all as basic as get an epoxy resin with a low hardness rating (Shore D hardness I see is used on most epoxy data sheets) and add some copper powder ?
Perhaps some colloidal silica (the standard thickener sold by epoxy makers) could maybe be added to help suspend the copper in the resin ?
I suspect the only benefit of the water based epoxy is that it has no solvent so does not smell ! It seem to have been eliminated from the erosion equation.
If both water and/or Solvent are the simple carriers added to the resin to aid application and neither has any water or solvent content or effect when cured then I wonder what difference a solvent based epoxy (paint) would have compared to a water based epoxy ?
They seem only ever to compare water based with solvent free ..
pmagowan
Well-Known Member
I have no angle but I see no inconsistency other that taking quotes out of context to compare. Something that erodes can be classified as non eroding in the context of antifoul because it's rate of erosion is low and erosion is not its primary mode of action. Also film thickness is an unscientific way of analysis since much of the film thickness, in terms of application, is made of copper, not epoxy. Therefore it is the rate of corrosion of the copper that will be dominant and the surface area of epoxy exposed to erosion will be hugely increased as the small grains of copper disappear leaving a pitted surface. To work on film thickness you would need to do an incredibly complex calculation working out the thickness related to epoxy divided by the surface area.
Bottom line is that it is an overly simplified way to try to counter the claims and it has no validity irrespective of whether the claims are true.
Last edited:
EwanClark
Well-Known Member
I'm happy to clear any confusion here.
Firstly, Coppercoat is indeed based upon an inherently waterproof resin. But although in the context of marine coatings most boat owners would deem epoxy resins to be completely waterproof, they are not. It's all about degree. Some resin are more impermeable than others. However, not even the best epoxy resins are 100% waterproof. But by applying epoxy resin to the hull, you can slow the rate of moisture penetration, so an epoxy treated boat is less likely to suffer from osmosis.
We do not advertise or market Coppercoat as a specialist anti-osmosis coating, and nobody buys it as such. It is sold as along term anti-foul, and that is why thousands of people buy it each year. But as a bonus to it being a long lasting anti-foul, and unlike any conventional anti-foul paint, it also can help to slow moisture penetration. We don't make a big play of this, but its a bonus for our clients none the less, and we are quite within our rights to say that it helps to protect GRP vessels against osmotic attack.
Secondly, the statement that Coppercoat is classified as non-eroding and causes less harm to the environment is also true. Certain types of anti-foul are classified as eroding, and others are not. Coppercoat is not. But that doesn't mean that it does not erode at all. Again, it's a matter of degree. And I don't think that many people would argue against the fact that a low leach rate is more environmentally friendly than a high leach rate (when comparing coatings using similar biocides). In fact, Coppercoat has even won an international award for its environmental credentials, and here in the UK it is applied to boats used by the Environment Agency.
I honestly didn't think these statements on the website were confusing, but maybe we need to think about re-wording them. We try to keep them as short as possible, but without losing accuracy. Maybe by making each statement a little longer we could give fuller explanations. Something for us to think about, anyway.
Last edited:
RichardS
N/A
This is just a circular argument that goes on and on.
Sticky Stuff is the only person on here who keeps talking about the supposed "confusion" between water-soluble resins (aka aqeuous resins or water-based epoxy) and the water-solubility or otherwise of the cured epoxy. This is just not an issue for the other posters on here and never has been.
I'm sure that AMC could find a suitable solvent-based epoxy if they wished but why bother if they have found an aqueous resin which does the job but is less toxic to use and can be cleaned off tools etc easily before it cures.
There might be issues in some circumstances with Coppercoat and some posters have written about how it didn't work as an antifoul as well as they hoped but, as far as I can recall, nobody has an issue about it being a water-based resin rather than volatile solvent based resin.
Richard
EwanClark
Well-Known Member
I don't think you're being daft or mixed up.
On the vast majority of Coppercoat-treated boats the dry film thickness (when new) is approximately 220 microns. Naturally some treatments are applied thicker than others, but this figure is a good guide. The rate of erosion will vary according to factors such as boat use, the frequency of scrubbing and so on, but as a guide, about 5 microns per year is the average loss.
And this helps to explain why it lasts for so long. Indeed, only last week I visited a boat in Poole Harbour that I painted myself back in 1994. The original Coppercoat treatment is still working well today, over 20 years later. The boat is simply lifted once a year for a pressure wash and that's it. In fact, you'll see this boat (a Moody 336) appearing in our adverts in the New Year (including Time Inc publications such as PBO).
As far as I'm aware, this particular boat has never been abraded, as it simply hasn't been necessary, so there is still a good thickness left. Of course, if it had needed burnishing (as some occasionally do), the coating would now be thinner and may even be ready for a re-coat. As you might expect, the owner is delighted. Since he instructed us to apply our system he's not had to buy or apply anti-foul for over 20 years.
Sticky Stuff
Well-Known Member
There are no claims being tried to counter, just a confusion between a give erosion rate at 5 microns a year and a 250 micron layer.
This is not an incredibly complex calculation by any stretch of the imagination, the coverage rate or volume of any material required is directly related to the solid content and the film thickness required.
This is not an incredibly complex calculation by any stretch of the imagination, the coverage rate or volume of any material required is directly related to the solid content and the film thickness required.