I Can’t Believe It’s Not Coppercoat!

Neeves said:
Wolf,

I'm not sure of equating copper based AF with an antibiotic dosed AF (and the introduction of antibiotics to the thread was, I hope, an aberration) but in answer to your query on non copper based AF:


3 of which I know Trilux 33 (International) and Mille Dynamic Alu by (Hempel). Wattyly/Valspar/Sigma have Seapro Plus 100. If you have big pockets, PropSpeed. And for something completely different try sonic AF, check for an Australian coy called Jaycar who sell 'build your own' kits.
Click to expand...

All these antifoulings ARE copper based in the form of copper (cuprous) thiocyanate. This makes them much less reactive with aluminium than copper oxide but also makes them less effective against shell fouling.

Wolf, you are possibly correct saying that copper will eventually be banned in antifoulings but there are no serious plans to do so at this time. A couple of ill informed attempts to do so have been made over the last 20 years but restrictions have generally been removed. Many studies have been carried out and, depending on the platform of the people involved, have variously shown copper to be completely harmless or dreadfully toxic! Consensus at the moment is that, even if copper is harmful to the environment, it is less so than than the alternative of massive amounts of fossil fuels being burnt to propel badly fouled shipping.

Copper comes in various forms in antifoulings. Main ones are in metallic form or as soluble combinations with other biocides in the form of copper oxide or copper thiocyanate. Metallic copper is a lot less bio available when in the ocean than the forms used in conventional paint type antifoulings.

Neeves mentions Propspeed as an expensive copper free antifouling. It is copper free and the generic type is produced by most of the major marine paint companies but usually for commercial shipping. The latest types of fluoropolymers are considered suitable for vessels moving at a minimum of 9 knots for at least 75% of the time. Propspeed is an older type that needed minimum speeds of about 15 knots to be effective. It works on leisure vessel propellors because it trades time in motion for absolute speed through the water. These products work by combining a low energy surface with a smooth finish that means fouling organisms have difficulty in adhering tightly. A smooth surface on its own will not work. If you leave them stationery for long enough they will become fouled and speed through the water will not remove that fouling
 
Pasarell; Neeves mentions Propspeed as an expensive copper free antifouling. It is copper free and the generic type is produced by most of the major marine paint companies but usually for commercial shipping. The latest types of fluoropolymers are considered suitable for vessels moving at a minimum of 9 knots for at least 75% of the time. Propspeed is an older type that needed minimum speeds of about 15 knots to be effective. It works on leisure vessel propellors because it trades time in motion for absolute speed through the water. These products work by combining a low energy surface with a smooth finish that means fouling organisms have difficulty in adhering tightly. A smooth surface on its own will not work. If you leave them stationery for long enough they will become fouled and speed through the water will not remove that fouling[/QUOTE said:
Why do we not see the modern fluoropolymers, instead of PropSpeed, in leisure applications - they work at lower speeds than Propspeed - so ought be more effective.

You make the point that leaving these smooth, low energy surfaces stationary does not work - they need to be moved - that's true of any AF (except sonic).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Neeves, I can only speculate about why flouropolymers are not available for you, but I'm also pretty sure my speculation is correct.
International did sell a small kit of the previous generation silicone polymer products for propellors in the UK a few years ago. I can't remember the name but it was pretty expensive on chandlers shelves and, like Propspeed, difficult to apply properly. My guess is it was not commercial and they withdrew it.
For yacht hulls these products are simply not appropriate yet. Difficult to apply, fragile in service. The biggest point, though, is that they need constant water flowing past the surface at a reasonable speed to be effective. The latest generation will work at a much lower speed than earlier versions but they still need to be moving most of the time.
Yachts are stationary most of the time and will foul up. Once a barnacle shell starts to cut into the soft surface it will be ruined - permanently. Removal is then difficult and expensive - you can't just paint over it.
25 years ago low surface energy products were far more complex than now, far more expensive and far less effective. Gradually they improved and started to be applied to things like submarine hulls - only governments could afford them.
Around 10 years ago they started to go onto a few long distance container ships, the sort that travel at 25 knots and only spend a few hours in any port.
Now they are being applied to large bulk cargo vessels that trade at 10 or 12 knots, but that are still moving almost all the time.
You would be a brave person to apply to a coastal vessel trading at low speeds or stationary a lot of the time. Also to one that operates in shallow water and risks damaging the soft coating by running aground.
Who knows how the technology will evolve over the next 10 years. Maybe suitable for leisure craft, but maybe it has reached its limits.
I can't say why Propspeed is still the older version (assuming it still is!) but I assume they buy it in from one of the major companies. To be honest, I'm not sure a fluoropolymer would be much more effective on a propellor than what they already use.

Your last comment about ultrasonic systems is not strictly correct. The main difference between conventional antifoulings for commercial vessels and yachts is the polishing rate of the resins and the release rate of biocides. Commercial products are tailored to particular vessel types but for yachts the market is just too small to do so and anyway most yachts are stationary most of the time.
Most yacht antifoulings will work pretty well when the vessel is stationary due to the high release rate of biocides. Metallic copper is also active when stationary although the mechanism is completely different from conventional paints. In some circumstances ultrasonic systems will work better when stationary than moving but that may not be tenable if people are on board at the time.
 
Last edited:
Just a passing thought....

I use a £25 'high frequency sonic' device at home which is intended to discomfort mice and other small critters from moving in. It plugs into a conventional mains power outlet, has several selectable modes, and appears to be effective.

Given that so many boaties have their floatinmaschin secured to a fully-serviced marina pontoon most of the time, might such a device be worth a try?
 
any details on the frequency and power of your mouse-scarer please ? Then we can compare with NormanE's circuitry.
 
copper-free antifoul

I'll be soda blasting my hull back to cement (yes, she's one of those) as she's got 30 years of paint on the bottom and needs some love, before re-painting completely and antifouling. In the past I've used standard antifoul but on my travels have discovered that that copper-free a/f is considered the best choice for ferro as helps reduce the possibility of electrolysis.

But... having just found out the exorbitant cost of copper-free a/f I might have to stick to barrier coats & conventional a/f:

Trilux 33 @ GBP £40+ /litre
Jotun SeaAlu @ GBP £30+ /litre

Silly prices. Any advice on copper-free AND economical a/f options would be gratefully received :-)

Cheers,
Wolf
 
My reading on threads and the little that has been done on sonic AF seems to suggest the jury is still out. It seems to work for some and not others. The biggest problem I see is that they use quite a lot of power and as many boats are on swing moorings without reliable access to solar power they are not a real alternative. I've also been of the view that people who keep their vessels in marinas might have more spare cash around to slip their boats more regularly and the sonic AF then becomes unnecessary. Equally if you have shore power, in a marina, your anodes probably disappear at a high rate so you'll be slipping even if only to replace them and as its out you'll wash down and/or touch up.

Jaycarm who sell the kits (or did sell the kits) and made some inroads in the UK and America apparently have 5 vessels running trials - I'm sure, as they are being 'managed', by Jaycar that they will be a resounding success.

But a stg25 mouse deterrent seems well worth investigating, beats stg700 ish (quite well) and it would keep any aquatic mice at bay as well!

Thanks for the detailed reply on PropSpeed et al. My only comment about applicvation is - its not difficult, monkeys could do it (with no disrespect to monkeys). Its sold over the counter in America through West Marine and if your average American can read the instructions and apply it then so could people in the UK and Australia. The 'sell through applicators' prevalent in the UK and Australia allows committment of an applicator to the product, who can make some real money for little effort, and introduces this idea that what you are paying for must be really difficult to apply - so worth the money. Watch it being done - you'll see what I mean! I would also agree that if you damage the coating, running aground seems pretty harsh, but simply hitting something in the water, small piece of wood, tough seaweed, pot line, net - you'll break the coating and the fouling will start.

The major international AF coys have recognised the need for a decent prop treatment, they must equally have seen the success of PropSpeed, and I am sure they like the idea of money for old rope, and are working on systems. As has been said many have major commercial systems already available, but 50l drums is not much use to us, whether they deem leisure AF for props big enough to address is a different issue (the fact they do nothing so far does not look too promising). One might have thought that some entrepreneur would have seen the opportunity and bought in bulk, these currently available formulations) and decanted off, as (I believe) is the basis for PropSpeed.
 
Pasarell; Your last comment about ultrasonic systems is not strictly correct. The main difference between conventional antifoulings for commercial vessels and yachts is the polishing rate of the resins and the release rate of biocides. Commercial products are tailored to particular vessel types but for yachts the market is just too small to do so and anyway most yachts are stationary most of the time. Most yacht antifoulings will work pretty well when the vessel is stationary due to the high release rate of biocides. Metallic copper is also active when stationary although the mechanism is completely different from conventional paints. In some circumstances ultrasonic systems will work better when stationary than moving but that may not be tenable if people are on board at the time.[/QUOTE said:
Pasarell,

You mention that the mechanism for the success of metallic Copper coatings is different to that of 'conventional' AF. Can you elaborate on this?

You also mention sonic might not be tenable with people on board - not sure I understood this one either!
Click to expand...
 
sarabande said:
any details on the frequency and power of your mouse-scarer please ? Then we can compare with NormanE's circuitry.
Click to expand...

The kitchen-fitted device is a 'Pest Stop' which offers a 4-way selectable ultrasonic emission ( mice, moths, mozzies and, er, MiLs ). It also pushes out an electromagnetic pulse which scares the hell out of the C-130E Hercules' which come by overhead at about 150' AGL. ( sic )

Sure it, runs off 230V / 3 Amp joos. No further info....
 
A sonic AF available in Oz, called Sonihull (might be made elsewhere) sell 2 units, a Mono (23 watts) and Duo (30 watts). They suggest the Mono will cover vessels upto 28ft and the Duo 28ft - 45ft (and for multis, double - presumably one in each hull - which contradicts a statement by another supplier who said they had a 33ft range (and few multis are quite that wide)). Frequency 20kHz-200kHz.

I know no-one with any actual experience (other than the vendors).
 
Neeves said:
A sonic AF available in Oz, called Sonihull (might be made elsewhere) sell 2 units, a Mono (23 watts) and Duo (30 watts). They suggest the Mono will cover vessels upto 28ft and the Duo 28ft - 45ft (and for multis, double - presumably one in each hull - which contradicts a statement by another supplier who said they had a 33ft range (and few multis are quite that wide)). Frequency 20kHz-200kHz.

I know no-one with any actual experience (other than the vendors).
Click to expand...

A black box containing a small vile of purest snake-oil?

If they do work, I wonder if 240v versions could be made at home for marina use...?
 
Neeves said:
A sonic AF available in Oz, called Sonihull (might be made elsewhere) sell 2 units, a Mono (23 watts) and Duo (30 watts). They suggest the Mono will cover vessels upto 28ft and the Duo 28ft - 45ft (and for multis, double - presumably one in each hull - which contradicts a statement by another supplier who said they had a 33ft range (and few multis are quite that wide)). Frequency 20kHz-200kHz.

I know no-one with any actual experience (other than the vendors).
Click to expand...

Snooks has posted about sonic A/F; his comments are on these forums somewhere. But basically, he says it works, and he was conducting a test for PBO or YBW; I forget which.
 
nimbusgb said:
Or just leave the mains battery charger connected ? :confused::confused::confused::confused:
Click to expand...

I was thinking of boats with their 12/24v circuits switched off - other than direct connections for bilge pumps and chargers.

Okay, okay... never mind... but if these gadgets work, can they be made from a load of bits from Maplin or RS?
 
There's a PIC processor that needs programming, a transformer to step up the output voltage and a special ultrasonic transducer that I have been unable to source locally but could be obtained from china.

I was thinking of building a 3 or 4. Channel version with only one processor and several output channels but it's hardly worth it.
 
nimbusgb said:
There's a PIC processor that needs programming, a transformer to step up the output voltage and a special ultrasonic transducer that I have been unable to source locally but could be obtained from china.

I was thinking of building a 3 or 4. Channel version with only one processor and several output channels but it's hardly worth it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm - yes - I think just mixing some copper powder and epoxy may be easier!
 
copper free a/f

ultrasonic devices notwithstanding, any advice on copper-free AND economical a/f options would be gratefully received, thanks :-)
 
I do not think there is a copper free and cheap A/F. The new products that are copper free are gorgeously expensive, Intersleek (and all the big AF coys have an equivalent), and they might not be polluting when in use but it would be interesting to know what impact their manufacture has on 'pollution,' energy usage to make, chemicals used to make etc etc.

Passing on one's environmental impact to somone else (a big international coy) does not reduce the impact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top