JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
What was your fouling like before?
I Can’t Believe It’s Not Coppercoat!
- Thread starter BoatingBeginner
- Start date
What was your fouling like before?
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
What to me used to seem usual.
I would take Indigo out late in the year, when there was usually an inch or two of weed. Blast it off, leave the boat ashore, scrape of the loose a/f, re-gloop it in the Spring, put the boat in the water and get a diver scrub in about August. Locations were Lymington and Hamble Rivers. Snowbird, coppercoated from new, was kept in Gosport. One lift ashore, usually over a spring weekend, blow off the slime, clean up the sail drive and prop, recoat them in Prop O Dev, change the anodes if needed, put the boat back.
I'm interested to see how that regime will need to change (if at all) now I'm in the Med.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Thanks. Sounds as if you had a significant problem. Where I am one coat of whatever's-cheap educes fouling to a very, very light slime, so there just isn't financial sense in spending at least thirty year's worth of antifouling costs (OK, inflation would help) on coppercoat.
EwanClark
Well-Known Member
Fouling rates vary greatly from place to place, which partly explains why no individual anti-foul product is perfect for every single boat, and certainly fouling rates in the River Hamble (for example) are far greater than in the south-west of Scotland. But it makes perfect sense to use the lowest cost anti-foul that works in any given location. There's no point in spending more than you need to, especially not on something as dull as anti-foul!
Most Coppercoat users find that the product pays for itself in about 3 years. For some the break even point is earlier, for others, it's later. It depends on what they usually spend on normal anti-foul, whether they DIY apply of pay someone to do it, whether they lift out each year or only every other year, and so on. There are many variables. Currently a 1 litre unit of Coppercoat has a recommended retail price of £84 inc Vat, which is approximately the price of a 2.5 litre tin of conventional anti-foul, so at the point of purchase, Coppercoat is about 2.5 times the price. (Please note that some conventional anti-fouls cost less than £84 per 2.5 litres, and some cost more, so please only use this only as an approximate guide). Then there is the complication that some people apply one coat of conventional anti-foul, while others may apply two or even three.
When applying Coppercoat to a boat that has been previously treated with conventional anti-foul, there is often the additional cost of removing that paint. Some people do this at virtually no cost, using a scraper and a lot of elbow grease. Others chose to pay for a blast clean. But even if you add the cost of a blast clean to the fact that the product itself is (approximately) two and half times the cost of most normal a-f paints, it would be highly unusual for an application of Coppercoat to cost 30 times that of a treatment of traditional anti-foul. That really is quite extreme! When we run through the maths with both regular clients or new enquirers, changing to CC usually equates to about 3 applications of normal a-f.
(But please note that the above is just a guide. If any forum reader would like to run through the maths accurately - taking into account their particular boat, their traditional choice of anti-foul, etc - please contact us.)
When applying to a new boat (i.e. a bare, unpainted hull), the preparation process and cost is the same for Coppercoat as it is for a conventional anti-foul. This explains why so many new boats are specified with it. As a quick example, of all the optional extras listed by Cornish Crabbers, Coppercoat is the most widely adopted, with over 90% of the boats they produce each year being so specified.
Most Coppercoat users find that the product pays for itself in about 3 years. For some the break even point is earlier, for others, it's later. It depends on what they usually spend on normal anti-foul, whether they DIY apply of pay someone to do it, whether they lift out each year or only every other year, and so on. There are many variables. Currently a 1 litre unit of Coppercoat has a recommended retail price of £84 inc Vat, which is approximately the price of a 2.5 litre tin of conventional anti-foul, so at the point of purchase, Coppercoat is about 2.5 times the price. (Please note that some conventional anti-fouls cost less than £84 per 2.5 litres, and some cost more, so please only use this only as an approximate guide). Then there is the complication that some people apply one coat of conventional anti-foul, while others may apply two or even three.
When applying Coppercoat to a boat that has been previously treated with conventional anti-foul, there is often the additional cost of removing that paint. Some people do this at virtually no cost, using a scraper and a lot of elbow grease. Others chose to pay for a blast clean. But even if you add the cost of a blast clean to the fact that the product itself is (approximately) two and half times the cost of most normal a-f paints, it would be highly unusual for an application of Coppercoat to cost 30 times that of a treatment of traditional anti-foul. That really is quite extreme! When we run through the maths with both regular clients or new enquirers, changing to CC usually equates to about 3 applications of normal a-f.
(But please note that the above is just a guide. If any forum reader would like to run through the maths accurately - taking into account their particular boat, their traditional choice of anti-foul, etc - please contact us.)
When applying to a new boat (i.e. a bare, unpainted hull), the preparation process and cost is the same for Coppercoat as it is for a conventional anti-foul. This explains why so many new boats are specified with it. As a quick example, of all the optional extras listed by Cornish Crabbers, Coppercoat is the most widely adopted, with over 90% of the boats they produce each year being so specified.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Hmm. That's interesting. I had the impression that it was a lot more than that - I thought about £1,500 for my 26' long-keeler. I gather that professional application is recommended, though, which must increase the cost a lot. A the moment I buy 2.5 litres of anything for thirty to forty quid and slap on a single coat in about an hour and a half, including masking tape time, but even so I might consider Coppercoat if/when I ever get round to stripping the antifouling completely. At the moment the yard's BFO diesel pressure washer does a splendid job of removing all this year's antifouling, and a bit of the built up, on lift-out.
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
I did it myself on our 31' fin-keel; it wasn't difficult and three people handily completed the coating in a day (one mixing, two applying). Probably could have managed with two people, but three made it easy, and we could rotate jobs to give people a change of scene; the person mixing could take it relatively easy, and in fact tended to help out with a paint-brush doing the bits inaccessible to the roller. No problem on a dry, reasonably warm day - I did it on the banks of the Clyde! Using the recommended rollers, we achieved a very nice, smooth finish.
I did pay for professional blasting, mainly because of time-constraints; life (and my wife's work leave) is too short to waste it scraping; I once helped scrape my brother's boat, and that was enough! I should say that blasting meant that some pitting of the keel was discovered that might not have been found if we'd used an angle-grinder or flap-wheel; the pits were filled with hard rust (or perhaps casting defects).
The whole job from start to finish took two days, with another day a week or two later to do the bits under the cradle pads and touch up any other bits. A problem is that the coating isn't load-bearing or water proof for several days (they recommend three days), so shifting pads as soon as the paint has "gone off", or leaving a pot for the marina crane team to touch up the missed bits isn't possible. It also requires several dry days forecast if doing it outside; we had a problem with that meaning we had to do some touching up.
Total cost was around £1300, but the majority of that was the blasting (£800).
So far so good; she hasn't seen much use this year, but even so there doesn't seem to be significant growth. Of course, the Clyde is a low-fouling area.
MagicalArmchair
Well-Known Member
I think with a Southampton boatshow haggle with CC, Triola (30 foot) cost me sub £500, and I think they threw in rollers, trays etc also as part of the boat show deal... I think I had six batches, maybe seven? I was applying directly over old CC, so no stripping the old stuff off, and it wasn't a complicated DIY in any way. Do be careful though and use common sense (read: pester Ewan a lot with every question imaginable
). A boat in our yard had CC applied PROFESSIONALLY over the top of an epoxy barrier product - they clearly didn't wash off the amine blush, and boom the CC didn't stick. Expensive mistake...
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
I think with a Southampton boatshow haggle with CC, Triola (30 foot) cost me sub £500, and I think they threw in rollers, trays etc also as part of the boat show deal... I think I had six batches, maybe seven? I was applying directly over old CC, so no stripping the old stuff off, and it wasn't a complicated DIY in any way. Do be careful though and use common sense (read: pester Ewan a lot with every question imaginable
+1 AMC are VERY supportive, and I discussed every aspect of what we intended with them before placing an order.
Sticky Stuff
Well-Known Member
I will stop using the term 'Science' as some quite rightly see I am not a scientist.
I feel like I am having a discussion about evolution with my local Jahova group (no issues with that before anyone starts on me, I am just making a point about never going to have a sensible discussion with such devout fans... so perhaps It is time to give up sharing my thoughts with the CC appreciation society.
Fair enough if the consensus is that having a product producer promoting (because that is what it is) or adding to the thread is ok then so be it.
I don't think we can stop them anyway ... at least they have the decency to declare themselves.
These people are in business to sell their product no matter how nice they are.
People keep saying how helpful and nice they are ... I am very sure they are, in fact it seems to be one of their biggest selling points ...'nothing wrong with that' before anyone tells me !
If someone were unhelpful in business I don't think they would be in business very long. So yes I agree they are nice people. ( I don't think I have ever said or implied they were not)
Yes of course we all want to hear about the successful cases from people that have used a product, so thank you for the input, but to be balanced, unbiased and to enable analysis of a subject I for one need to hear about the unsuccessful cases as well as the successful ones. Is anyone trying to say there are no unsuccessful cases ?
Come on ... I and others had and still have a point .. What are the reasons behind the unsuccessful ones ?
A point has now been clarified which I accept but for me being told that it works because it uses a water based resin and this water based resin made it water soluble which allows it to erode never seemed right. This over-egged misconception as part of a sales pitch put real and justified doubts in my mind.
My doubts have never been with the many successful cases , I can clearly see there are many fans out there not just on this forum but also in the CC brochure, however adding additional fans don't remove the doubts, but thank you all none the less to everyone who has mentioned how good it is.
Any product maker does not sell their product by promoting or talking about their failures, this is why they are in this case not a helpful addition to the recent points, however far these points maybe from the thread start point.
Thanks for the good debate while it lased !
I feel like I am having a discussion about evolution with my local Jahova group (no issues with that before anyone starts on me, I am just making a point about never going to have a sensible discussion with such devout fans... so perhaps It is time to give up sharing my thoughts with the CC appreciation society.
Fair enough if the consensus is that having a product producer promoting (because that is what it is) or adding to the thread is ok then so be it.
I don't think we can stop them anyway ... at least they have the decency to declare themselves.
These people are in business to sell their product no matter how nice they are.
People keep saying how helpful and nice they are ... I am very sure they are, in fact it seems to be one of their biggest selling points ...'nothing wrong with that' before anyone tells me !
If someone were unhelpful in business I don't think they would be in business very long. So yes I agree they are nice people. ( I don't think I have ever said or implied they were not)
Yes of course we all want to hear about the successful cases from people that have used a product, so thank you for the input, but to be balanced, unbiased and to enable analysis of a subject I for one need to hear about the unsuccessful cases as well as the successful ones. Is anyone trying to say there are no unsuccessful cases ?
Come on ... I and others had and still have a point .. What are the reasons behind the unsuccessful ones ?
A point has now been clarified which I accept but for me being told that it works because it uses a water based resin and this water based resin made it water soluble which allows it to erode never seemed right. This over-egged misconception as part of a sales pitch put real and justified doubts in my mind.
My doubts have never been with the many successful cases , I can clearly see there are many fans out there not just on this forum but also in the CC brochure, however adding additional fans don't remove the doubts, but thank you all none the less to everyone who has mentioned how good it is.
Any product maker does not sell their product by promoting or talking about their failures, this is why they are in this case not a helpful addition to the recent points, however far these points maybe from the thread start point.
Thanks for the good debate while it lased !
Puggy
Well-Known Member
Well I am one of the people for whom Coppercoat didn't work.
It was very hard to apply successfully, despite doing in mid summer in 20degC and low humidity. Mine was a semi DIY job with myself and some professional assistance. We followed instructions for conditions and preparation, and also skirted round the boat. I had lots of problems with adhesion of the tie coat (3M if I remember correctly) to a previous copper system called Cuprotec, and the whole lot blistered. £3500 that cost..
Whilst blistered, it was on the boat for about 18 months and I found performance was not what I expected. I am in an area of flowing brackish tidal water (Fareham) which encourages heavy fouling. In less than three months the boat had grown a "beard" around the waterline and lots of barnacles (they seem to love the stuff and are bloody hard to get off). I launched the boat in March and had to lift it in June to have it scrubbed (£600+ for my size of boat...). By September, completely grown again. When I motored the boat back in October to lift her out, I couldn't get the engine to pull any decent revs she was so fouled.
Opinion seems to be divided about rubbing down Coppercoat before relaunching, but I did it anyway as it couldn't be worse, and I saw no noticeable change in performance either way.
Finally accepted defeat this June and have had the hull blasted back and re-expoxied. Gone for a traditional hard antifoul base with annual soft anti foul. Might not work any better, and be more work, but at least I have options to try something different. I reckon the whole exercise has cost me over £6000...
Puggy
It was very hard to apply successfully, despite doing in mid summer in 20degC and low humidity. Mine was a semi DIY job with myself and some professional assistance. We followed instructions for conditions and preparation, and also skirted round the boat. I had lots of problems with adhesion of the tie coat (3M if I remember correctly) to a previous copper system called Cuprotec, and the whole lot blistered. £3500 that cost..
Whilst blistered, it was on the boat for about 18 months and I found performance was not what I expected. I am in an area of flowing brackish tidal water (Fareham) which encourages heavy fouling. In less than three months the boat had grown a "beard" around the waterline and lots of barnacles (they seem to love the stuff and are bloody hard to get off). I launched the boat in March and had to lift it in June to have it scrubbed (£600+ for my size of boat...). By September, completely grown again. When I motored the boat back in October to lift her out, I couldn't get the engine to pull any decent revs she was so fouled.
Opinion seems to be divided about rubbing down Coppercoat before relaunching, but I did it anyway as it couldn't be worse, and I saw no noticeable change in performance either way.
Finally accepted defeat this June and have had the hull blasted back and re-expoxied. Gone for a traditional hard antifoul base with annual soft anti foul. Might not work any better, and be more work, but at least I have options to try something different. I reckon the whole exercise has cost me over £6000...
Puggy
Neeves
Well-Known Member
Sticky Stuff,
This is a free and open forum - anyone can post and does. No-one who has a product that is unsuccessful is banned from posting, we get good and bad as the previous post illustrates. This is not the CC appreciation society. If there are not many dissatisfied customers posting there is a reason, guess what it is.
I do accept that it is possible that people with a poor CC record, are not members, do not like to post - but somehow I think not.
There is no conspiracy, the 190 posts is a fair representation of the forum's views.
Ewan's posts helped resolve contentious issues that, primarily, you raised. Possibly if you had not laboured the point, against the posts by the majority, they would not have felt the same imperative to respond. I reiterate - I find the input of the manufacturers, all of whom appear to honestly declare their interests, to be beneficial. Other forum do not allow much, or any, commercial input of product that are not advertising - you can make your own decision on that. But I think they are the worse.
Jonathan
This is a free and open forum - anyone can post and does. No-one who has a product that is unsuccessful is banned from posting, we get good and bad as the previous post illustrates. This is not the CC appreciation society. If there are not many dissatisfied customers posting there is a reason, guess what it is.
I do accept that it is possible that people with a poor CC record, are not members, do not like to post - but somehow I think not.
There is no conspiracy, the 190 posts is a fair representation of the forum's views.
Ewan's posts helped resolve contentious issues that, primarily, you raised. Possibly if you had not laboured the point, against the posts by the majority, they would not have felt the same imperative to respond. I reiterate - I find the input of the manufacturers, all of whom appear to honestly declare their interests, to be beneficial. Other forum do not allow much, or any, commercial input of product that are not advertising - you can make your own decision on that. But I think they are the worse.
Jonathan
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Sticky stuff
Not sure what you are trying to show. You now have a good explanation of how the product works as well as some background about similar products that have seemingly failed to work - and some explanation for the reasons of failure.
Failure is of three types. The first and most obvious is whether the product is good at preventing fouling and it is freely accepted that it is similar to other products - that is not always successful in all situations. The second is failure to adhere or work at all, which may be either poor application or a failure of the product itself. The few cases of this type that have been reported here do not seem to show any clear pattern. The third type is failure to last as long as claimed or expected, and here the evidence so far is that it lasts longer than other products.
So, all your attempts to confuse the issues by questioning the formulation of the epoxy or the way it erodes in order to continue working is rather irrelevant. i fail to see how this helps understand the product in order to decide whether to use it or not. Such matters might be important for an unproven product if one is trying to assess whether to try it or not, but not in the case of this product.
This brings us to your constant reference to long life products available from other manufacturers. if these products do exist they are well hidden from potential users, As far as I know there are no products on the market aimed at the pleasure boat market that promise long life. All the products I have seen are based on an annual cycle or at best 2 year cycle of replacement. Even then the most effective of these have been withdrawn from dIY usage.
So, if you really want to contribute anything useful rather than your constant negative carping, perhaps you could share with us what these wonder products are and where they can be purchased.
Not sure what you are trying to show. You now have a good explanation of how the product works as well as some background about similar products that have seemingly failed to work - and some explanation for the reasons of failure.
Failure is of three types. The first and most obvious is whether the product is good at preventing fouling and it is freely accepted that it is similar to other products - that is not always successful in all situations. The second is failure to adhere or work at all, which may be either poor application or a failure of the product itself. The few cases of this type that have been reported here do not seem to show any clear pattern. The third type is failure to last as long as claimed or expected, and here the evidence so far is that it lasts longer than other products.
So, all your attempts to confuse the issues by questioning the formulation of the epoxy or the way it erodes in order to continue working is rather irrelevant. i fail to see how this helps understand the product in order to decide whether to use it or not. Such matters might be important for an unproven product if one is trying to assess whether to try it or not, but not in the case of this product.
This brings us to your constant reference to long life products available from other manufacturers. if these products do exist they are well hidden from potential users, As far as I know there are no products on the market aimed at the pleasure boat market that promise long life. All the products I have seen are based on an annual cycle or at best 2 year cycle of replacement. Even then the most effective of these have been withdrawn from dIY usage.
So, if you really want to contribute anything useful rather than your constant negative carping, perhaps you could share with us what these wonder products are and where they can be purchased.
Neeves
Well-Known Member
+1
You would do a service to us all by declaring this positive and useful information, you know more about these wonder products than any of us here - and I can assure you we have been searching, fruitlessly (ignoring the success or otherwise of CC) for such products for decades, so you will have a very appreciative audience.
Jonathan
Sticky Stuff
Well-Known Member
Wow.... its like being beaten up by a gang of bullies !
What's the bets that someone says i'm the bully for tenaciously highlighting a few inconsistencies or says its a taste of my own medicine !
Ho ho wait for it !!
If the bullies thought I had gone ...... wrong !
Does it really make a difference if I am a Copper Epoxy system lover or hater (I am neither).
I have valid points and opinions as well others, some of these Copper Epoxy coated boats really do seem to be pretty good ..... but some are not !
I took the time to look at 3 boats yesterday with a copper epoxy system, each appeared to have been Jet washed after having been in the water (and before you ask, I know they have been in the water because the jet washing was far from perfect and each had some degree of remaining fouling (green type, no barnacles and not much admittedly).
Each boat had similarities .... all have quite prominent stripes that look like roller stripes.
The stripes are between a golden copper colour and a very green copper colour, some areas of both colours are much lighter as if the original white surface underneath can still be seen through the layer.
Correct me please bullies if my assumption that these colour stripes must be the difference between exposed copper and unexposed copper and the lighter areas could be where there is a lower concentration of copper in the clear resin layer. ( I assume the resin is clear without pigments and the only thing hiding any whiteness of the hull below would be the concentration of copper in the layer ? )
Is it possible that the green areas are exposed copper and the areas that are holding their golden copper colour are insulated copper within the layer of resin and not yet come into contact with the water ?
The whole surface on all of them was as hard as nails and simply polishes to a shine with a fingernail. I was tempted to try with a key or similar but I am not a destructive vandal (as some of the bullies would have you believe) but I don't feel this would have made any difference anyway, it felt extremely hard.
Two of the boats had wave effects where the resin seemed to have run down ... the colour within the wave also changes. At the top of the wave effect it was very light, almost transparent like the concentration of copper was lower, as the waves progressed further down they appear to turn much darker golden copper colour and then right at the bottom of the waves it became much more green.
Is it possible any inconsistency in the application could be the difference between the great performing systems that the bullies don't want me to forget ( and why would I some are clearly good) and the poorer performing examples.
Should the surface be green all over or Copper colour all over after being in the water ?
Does the colour difference between the different areas make a difference to the performance and antifouling effect in such areas ?
What is the effect on application if the difference between summer and winter working temperatures is taken into account? (lets say 25 to 5 degrees)
Would this alter the way the copper behaves in the wet resin. I suspect it might but has anyone else an opinion on this. Or will it just be the bullies who reply to tell me it is not relevant .
I generally keep my Epoxy resin in a wooden box with a light bulb inside (as do many) simply to keep it warm, otherwise it becomes like soft toffee in the winter (almost unusable).
In the Summer my resin becomes like a very thin paint and will simply drain down a vertical surface. I would go so far as it could be twice (or half depending on how you want to look at it) as thick in the winter as it is in the summer.
I often have to add white silica powder to thicken Epoxy in the summer to stop the resin literally draining out of the glass cloth.
How do Epoxy copper systems get over this thinning or thickening of the Epoxy issue with seasonal temperature variation or does the water based epoxy not change with temperature ? ( Fair question is it not ?)
Perhaps it makes no difference ? or perhaps it make loads ?
If the resin runs in the summer does the painter have to roll it on thinner as I have to with mine ?
So perhaps a summer job has less thickness than a winter job ? Perhaps thinner resin layers have more exposed copper ?
Should more coats be rolled on by the user to compensate for this potential lack of thickness ?
Perhaps the copper particles (heavy copper particles) behave the same way in thick resin as they do in thin resin ? (Hmmm perhaps but a little unlikely)
Is there a particular way to roll it on that ensures even distribution of the copper ? ie if it is rolled over and over does this encourage the copper to sink and the resin to come to the surface, much like tamping concrete ? Just a thought ?
What's the bets that someone says i'm the bully for tenaciously highlighting a few inconsistencies or says its a taste of my own medicine !
Ho ho wait for it !!
If the bullies thought I had gone ...... wrong !
Does it really make a difference if I am a Copper Epoxy system lover or hater (I am neither).
I have valid points and opinions as well others, some of these Copper Epoxy coated boats really do seem to be pretty good ..... but some are not !
I took the time to look at 3 boats yesterday with a copper epoxy system, each appeared to have been Jet washed after having been in the water (and before you ask, I know they have been in the water because the jet washing was far from perfect and each had some degree of remaining fouling (green type, no barnacles and not much admittedly).
Each boat had similarities .... all have quite prominent stripes that look like roller stripes.
The stripes are between a golden copper colour and a very green copper colour, some areas of both colours are much lighter as if the original white surface underneath can still be seen through the layer.
Correct me please bullies if my assumption that these colour stripes must be the difference between exposed copper and unexposed copper and the lighter areas could be where there is a lower concentration of copper in the clear resin layer. ( I assume the resin is clear without pigments and the only thing hiding any whiteness of the hull below would be the concentration of copper in the layer ? )
Is it possible that the green areas are exposed copper and the areas that are holding their golden copper colour are insulated copper within the layer of resin and not yet come into contact with the water ?
The whole surface on all of them was as hard as nails and simply polishes to a shine with a fingernail. I was tempted to try with a key or similar but I am not a destructive vandal (as some of the bullies would have you believe) but I don't feel this would have made any difference anyway, it felt extremely hard.
Two of the boats had wave effects where the resin seemed to have run down ... the colour within the wave also changes. At the top of the wave effect it was very light, almost transparent like the concentration of copper was lower, as the waves progressed further down they appear to turn much darker golden copper colour and then right at the bottom of the waves it became much more green.
Is it possible any inconsistency in the application could be the difference between the great performing systems that the bullies don't want me to forget ( and why would I some are clearly good) and the poorer performing examples.
Should the surface be green all over or Copper colour all over after being in the water ?
Does the colour difference between the different areas make a difference to the performance and antifouling effect in such areas ?
What is the effect on application if the difference between summer and winter working temperatures is taken into account? (lets say 25 to 5 degrees)
Would this alter the way the copper behaves in the wet resin. I suspect it might but has anyone else an opinion on this. Or will it just be the bullies who reply to tell me it is not relevant .
I generally keep my Epoxy resin in a wooden box with a light bulb inside (as do many) simply to keep it warm, otherwise it becomes like soft toffee in the winter (almost unusable).
In the Summer my resin becomes like a very thin paint and will simply drain down a vertical surface. I would go so far as it could be twice (or half depending on how you want to look at it) as thick in the winter as it is in the summer.
I often have to add white silica powder to thicken Epoxy in the summer to stop the resin literally draining out of the glass cloth.
How do Epoxy copper systems get over this thinning or thickening of the Epoxy issue with seasonal temperature variation or does the water based epoxy not change with temperature ? ( Fair question is it not ?)
Perhaps it makes no difference ? or perhaps it make loads ?
If the resin runs in the summer does the painter have to roll it on thinner as I have to with mine ?
So perhaps a summer job has less thickness than a winter job ? Perhaps thinner resin layers have more exposed copper ?
Should more coats be rolled on by the user to compensate for this potential lack of thickness ?
Perhaps the copper particles (heavy copper particles) behave the same way in thick resin as they do in thin resin ? (Hmmm perhaps but a little unlikely)
Is there a particular way to roll it on that ensures even distribution of the copper ? ie if it is rolled over and over does this encourage the copper to sink and the resin to come to the surface, much like tamping concrete ? Just a thought ?
Sticky Stuff
Well-Known Member
I know we are having a good discussion at 20 odd pages but the subject of club rules is beating us big time 72 pages
Come on guys we have some catching up to do ...
I will keep going if you do
Come on guys we have some catching up to do ...
I will keep going if you do
pmagowan
Well-Known Member
I am not sure there is anything to add. Nobody else seems to have the problems understanding the claims of the product that you do and thus we are left with anecdote. The anecdote on this thread seems to broadly support CC as an effective product. You can't make a scientific argument based on anecdotes or the small amount of information we have from the manufacturer about the properties of the product. The conversation is no longer useful or, it seems, sensible.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
If you have specific questions about the application and performance of Coppercoat - as you seem to from this latest diatribe then I suggest you take up Ewan's offer (which he has made at least twice) to speak to him direct.
Fail to see how anybody else here can hope to answer your questions as most of us are users rather than manufacturers and appliers of the product.
No bullying going on here - just suspicious of somebody who keeps asking questions, then complaining nobody answers them while at the same time makes claims about the existence of other products but refuses to name them.
Would suggest such an approach does not lead to discussion and sharing of information.
geem
Well-Known Member
Well said
Sticky Stuff
Well-Known Member
Ah ha !!
You are out there, at least people are still reading what I have to say.
If I speak to some one directly no one else gets to consider the questions or the answers.
The good thing with Forums is that any subject will always be there to be seen and considered.
All comments are good advertising I remember someone in this thread said.
All the time someone answers (especially with detail of my post) it tells me they are reading and subsequently considering my points (valid points) even if they do then state it to be not useful or sensible.
If someone is asking me or others to have faith in a product because they say so and just because there are some good examples of it working without then looking at the bad examples as well let me just say it is not going to happen.
I for one need more than just faith, there are reasons for the failures one would think, or should we all consider the good examples to be Luck ?
I don't believe in a god however my mind can be changed I will always be willing to look at evidence either way and make up my mind based on that evidence.
Multiple good examples are only good evidence if there are no bad examples.
In the Case of Copper Epoxy systems that clearly is not the case, there are also many bad examples and I am as keen to find out what makes it work as well as what makes it fail.
Should copper exposed to water and then to the air be green or can it continue to be a golden copper colour ?
If it remains a golden copper colour does that indicate it is not exposed to the elements that create this colour change ?
You are out there, at least people are still reading what I have to say.
If I speak to some one directly no one else gets to consider the questions or the answers.
The good thing with Forums is that any subject will always be there to be seen and considered.
All comments are good advertising I remember someone in this thread said.
All the time someone answers (especially with detail of my post) it tells me they are reading and subsequently considering my points (valid points) even if they do then state it to be not useful or sensible.
If someone is asking me or others to have faith in a product because they say so and just because there are some good examples of it working without then looking at the bad examples as well let me just say it is not going to happen.
I for one need more than just faith, there are reasons for the failures one would think, or should we all consider the good examples to be Luck ?
I don't believe in a god however my mind can be changed I will always be willing to look at evidence either way and make up my mind based on that evidence.
Multiple good examples are only good evidence if there are no bad examples.
In the Case of Copper Epoxy systems that clearly is not the case, there are also many bad examples and I am as keen to find out what makes it work as well as what makes it fail.
Should copper exposed to water and then to the air be green or can it continue to be a golden copper colour ?
If it remains a golden copper colour does that indicate it is not exposed to the elements that create this colour change ?
Neeves
Well-Known Member
Totally incorrect, on both statements.
You are quite happy to quote at length so why not quote at length with something useful.
Repeatedly you have been asked to define the 'conventional' antifouing products of which you know that you say offer a 3 year guarantee. I am increasingly suspicious of your reticence.
Secondly you are free to query Ewan directly and summarise accurately the discussion. You can therefore probe to your hearts content those issues you feel are outstanding and then describe the results of the discussion with members of the forum here. We will be interested and we will be happy to give credit if you reveal something that was not already known.
Waiting patiently,
Jonathan