Elessar
Well-Known Member
so why did you read this in detail but not bother with the CopperCoat instructions?
Ultrasonic antifouling?
- Thread starter Montemar
- Start date
so why did you read this in detail but not bother with the CopperCoat instructions?
Nick_H
Well-Known Member
Well, of course I did read the Coppercoat instructions before I applied it, which state a MINIMUM of 4 coats, and the advice (direct from Coppercoat) is to use the calculated amount, however many coats that takes (which was six in my case, but I allowed for five in the maths). Agreed you need to prime a bare hull before applying normal antifoul, which wasn't included in my maths.
I've not heard the comment about reaching full performance in year 2 before, is it included anywhere in the Coppercoat literature so people know what they're buying?
Whatever you say about not needing to abrade the surface each season, mobo users generally find they need to do it to keep a good level of performance. Look at the user posts on this and the previous antifouling thread. I also question the increased speed claim on the Coppercoat website, I didn't find any increase in speed on a very fast planing hull, where you'd expect the effect to be greatest.
Having said all that, Coppercoat definitely works, I stated that in my opening post, but if they are going to make extravagant claims in their literature about time and cost savings, outperforming conventional antifouling, and achieving speed increases, then they shouldn't be surprised when people shout up if they have bought the product but have found the claims to be exaggerated.
Elessar
Well-Known Member
Yes Nick you were right to use all the product.
Of course what you say for MOBO's is true - I have a MOBO remember! The limiting factor is always the sterngear and that is why I have been experimenting with ultrasonics to complement the CopperCoat.
Stop the sanding, just jetwash and the antifouling performance will improve.
The only time to sand (and it's a v light, fine burnish) is before 1st launch and maybe after 6-8 years if the performance drops off.
I agree with your statement about expectation. But I really don't think you've drawn a fair comparison.
As for the speed claims, large sunseekers gain quite a few extra knots say sunseeker. That and lots of user reports make the claim very reasonable. Even so I was keen to get some more specific data. So.....
There will be a before and after speed trial in your favourite magazine very soon. Keep buying it (and I'll keep my fingers crossed
)
Last edited:
Montemar
Well-Known Member
Thank you for all the comments on ultrasonics.
My thinking is that fibreglass can cope with the vibes and will not suffer.
Whilst trying to tidy up the myriad boating mags lying around I found an article in PBO August 2011 about a ultrasonic antifouling kit which is about 10% of the finished product price.
I will look into this but it is so relatively cheap it has to be worth a punt.
Has anyone else other than the article's author tried it out?
My thinking is that fibreglass can cope with the vibes and will not suffer.
Whilst trying to tidy up the myriad boating mags lying around I found an article in PBO August 2011 about a ultrasonic antifouling kit which is about 10% of the finished product price.
I will look into this but it is so relatively cheap it has to be worth a punt.
Has anyone else other than the article's author tried it out?
Fr J Hackett
Well-Known Member
See the thread on PBO reader to reader raggies admittedly but salient non-the-less
longjohnsilver
Well-Known Member
As for the speed claims, large sunseekers gain quite a few extra knots say sunseeker. That and lots of user reports make the claim very reasonable. Even so I was keen to get some more specific data. So.....
There will be a before and after speed trial in your favourite magazine very soon. Keep buying it (and I'll keep my fingers crossed
I have no personal experience of coppercoat but have at various times considered applying it but for various reasons have not done so. From what I have seen on other boats it has been pretty effective.
However I am somewhat surprised at your claim that it adds quite a few extra knots to a planing hull. Why should that be? I would have thought that with 2 identical clean hulls then the performance would be exactly the same. How does coppercoat increase the speed of a boat (apart from hopefully reducing the amount of fouling during a season)?
To me such a claim sounds very much like another poster some years ago claiming that adding Soltron increased the fuel efficiency of an engine. I do use Soltron but don't expect any increase in fuel efficiency.
Elessar
Well-Known Member
I don't know.
I reported what others have said.
There is an independent test being published soon.
Nick_H
Well-Known Member
The reason given is that the surface is less porous than conventional antifoul, because its epoxy. It's certainly true that an antifouled boat is slower than a non antifouled boat, but I lost speed between the sea trial on the Windy (clean hull and props, old antifoul), and launching with Coppercoat, although I can't rule out air temperature as a factor, because it was very cold on the sea trial.
It'll be interseting to see the test results
Nick_H
Well-Known Member
Why are you doing the test in Luscious Lesbos Monthly?
longjohnsilver
Well-Known Member
yes it will be interesting.
It's my understanding that engines should run slightly better in cold air as it's slightly denser so more air taken in. So your Windy should have been slightly faster, especially if it has a turbo. No doubt others can explain it better or correct me if I'm wrong.
Ianqv
Well-Known Member
USAF
Hi All,
Just tuned into this thread...
For what it is worth I have A 37ft Jeanneau s/o, I have fitted a twin sensor / dual voltage system. My boat is based on the River Blackwater on the East Coast. So far I have not had any fouling at all!!
Regards
Ian
Hi All,
Just tuned into this thread...
For what it is worth I have A 37ft Jeanneau s/o, I have fitted a twin sensor / dual voltage system. My boat is based on the River Blackwater on the East Coast. So far I have not had any fouling at all!!
Regards
Ian
Elessar
Well-Known Member
BTW you're right about the standard antifoul being porous and slowing the boat. The test was CopperCoat versus a clean, bare hull.
vas
Well-Known Member
quite an interesting read (says after spending the last 2 hours reading through the 25page thread...)
Anyone care to explain why it wont work on a wooden (ok, plywood) hull?
cheers
V.
Anyone care to explain why it wont work on a wooden (ok, plywood) hull?
cheers
V.
dmmbruce
Well-Known Member
It does not work on wood as it absorbs the Ultrasonic vibration rather than transmitting it along the hull.
Elessar
Well-Known Member
Yup.
Same for cored hulls including almost all sterndrive MOBO transoms.
It's all about the acoustic isolation.
dmmbruce
Well-Known Member
Ultrasonic Antifouling
USAF for short, I am using this and I am pleased with it.
It is not perfect, nor does it claim to be, but it has improved things for me considerably. I score it at least 7.5 out of 10.
I have particular circumstances that don't apply to everyone.
My boat is a Heavenly Twin 26ft cat. Kept in Poole where there is heavy fouling. The single outboard engine is in the middle of the boat. My back/legs/heart are not in a state to go underneath when she is aground so I can't give her the usual mid-season scraping.
The result used to be a VERY heavy growth of weed and barnacles round the engine gearbox and propeller. Plus a lot of weed barnacles on the inside surfaces of the hull.
Last year was my first year with USAF. I deliberately did not attempt any cleaning of the hull or engine. It was much less heavily fouled than usual. It motored up to Wareham without difficulty in November which certainly was not the situation previously though I would normally previously have cleaned her several times.
When lifted out she looked messy, but the few barnacles on the hull pushed off with the edge of a credit card. And washed of easily. They were previously stuck like rock.
The engine/prop was half the usual size and the water ways were still working.
I have two transducers, one in either hull obviously, positioned level with the engine which is over 1m from either hull and mounted on a wooden bearer. Not ideal for USAF.
The system is on a time clock and comes on at 0700 and off at 1900. This matches the time when the solar panels that power it are working.
I also put on one coat of AF paint to deal with the sea-squirts which are not affected by USAF. That works well. The paint did not work at all well with the barnacles.
Weed still grows on the wooden rudders and skegs, but consideably less, and surprisingly few barnacles.
This year I had planned to get some help and give her a rub over with a green pan scourer. Unfortunately the weather, and me damaging my legs have conspired against this so I won't be able to check this as I would have liked.
-----------------------------------
In my circumstances it is doing quite well and is a big improvement.
If you want a clean bottom, it won't do that.
If you are in to racing, it is irrelevant, you would just polish your boat.
If your boat sits in a marina or out on a swing mooring most of the time, it may suit you very well, if fouling conditions are similar to my experience.
It does at least as well as copper-coat has done on two other boats that I know in the same part of Poole. But much cheaper and should last longer. I hope
-----------------------------------
I hope that helps.
PM me if you want more info.
Cheers
Mike
USAF for short, I am using this and I am pleased with it.
It is not perfect, nor does it claim to be, but it has improved things for me considerably. I score it at least 7.5 out of 10.
I have particular circumstances that don't apply to everyone.
My boat is a Heavenly Twin 26ft cat. Kept in Poole where there is heavy fouling. The single outboard engine is in the middle of the boat. My back/legs/heart are not in a state to go underneath when she is aground so I can't give her the usual mid-season scraping.
The result used to be a VERY heavy growth of weed and barnacles round the engine gearbox and propeller. Plus a lot of weed barnacles on the inside surfaces of the hull.
Last year was my first year with USAF. I deliberately did not attempt any cleaning of the hull or engine. It was much less heavily fouled than usual. It motored up to Wareham without difficulty in November which certainly was not the situation previously though I would normally previously have cleaned her several times.
When lifted out she looked messy, but the few barnacles on the hull pushed off with the edge of a credit card. And washed of easily. They were previously stuck like rock.
The engine/prop was half the usual size and the water ways were still working.
I have two transducers, one in either hull obviously, positioned level with the engine which is over 1m from either hull and mounted on a wooden bearer. Not ideal for USAF.
The system is on a time clock and comes on at 0700 and off at 1900. This matches the time when the solar panels that power it are working.
I also put on one coat of AF paint to deal with the sea-squirts which are not affected by USAF. That works well. The paint did not work at all well with the barnacles.
Weed still grows on the wooden rudders and skegs, but consideably less, and surprisingly few barnacles.
This year I had planned to get some help and give her a rub over with a green pan scourer. Unfortunately the weather, and me damaging my legs have conspired against this so I won't be able to check this as I would have liked.
-----------------------------------
In my circumstances it is doing quite well and is a big improvement.
If you want a clean bottom, it won't do that.
If you are in to racing, it is irrelevant, you would just polish your boat.
If your boat sits in a marina or out on a swing mooring most of the time, it may suit you very well, if fouling conditions are similar to my experience.
It does at least as well as copper-coat has done on two other boats that I know in the same part of Poole. But much cheaper and should last longer. I hope
-----------------------------------
I hope that helps.
PM me if you want more info.
Cheers
Mike
Greg01
Active Member
Copper Coat and Sonihull ultra sonic anti fouling.
Arc Anti foul of Southampton recently applied copper coat by their new spraying method to my Sunseeker Thunderhawk. Having seen a fair degree of speculation over this topic I would like to state a few facts. Firstly I watched two guys from Arc lightly abrade my hull prior to its initial launch, it took 30 minutes. If you take any longer rubbing down you are abrading away good copper that you have paid good money for.
We immediatly sea trialled the boat when it was launched. At identical rpm in identical sea conditions with identical zero leg trim we gained 1 knot at cruising speed. We ran two two ways averages 30 minutes after high water just to make sure. This was compared against an exact sea trial the boat was put through two months before hand with a newly epoxied smooth hull with no growth, like for like launched that day. Sprayed copper coat is smoother than a lightly sanded epoxy hull but not quite as smooth as bare gel coat and it is clearly smoother than eroding anti fouling. We will report back on this method of application and the sea trial shortly in the mag, plus a report on its anti fouling later next year. We will also be testing two SoniHull ultra sonic transducers bonded to my sterndrives to see if they keep the sterndrives clear. We will test them one stern drive at a time in order to make a direct comparison against the unprotected drive.
Greg Copp
Technical writer
MBY.
Arc Anti foul of Southampton recently applied copper coat by their new spraying method to my Sunseeker Thunderhawk. Having seen a fair degree of speculation over this topic I would like to state a few facts. Firstly I watched two guys from Arc lightly abrade my hull prior to its initial launch, it took 30 minutes. If you take any longer rubbing down you are abrading away good copper that you have paid good money for.
We immediatly sea trialled the boat when it was launched. At identical rpm in identical sea conditions with identical zero leg trim we gained 1 knot at cruising speed. We ran two two ways averages 30 minutes after high water just to make sure. This was compared against an exact sea trial the boat was put through two months before hand with a newly epoxied smooth hull with no growth, like for like launched that day. Sprayed copper coat is smoother than a lightly sanded epoxy hull but not quite as smooth as bare gel coat and it is clearly smoother than eroding anti fouling. We will report back on this method of application and the sea trial shortly in the mag, plus a report on its anti fouling later next year. We will also be testing two SoniHull ultra sonic transducers bonded to my sterndrives to see if they keep the sterndrives clear. We will test them one stern drive at a time in order to make a direct comparison against the unprotected drive.
Greg Copp
Technical writer
MBY.
Paragon
Well-Known Member
Hi Mike
What sort of solar panel capacity do you find you need to keep up with the power requirements of the USAF? Is this supplemented by a wind turbine or shore power at all?
TIA
John
What sort of solar panel capacity do you find you need to keep up with the power requirements of the USAF? Is this supplemented by a wind turbine or shore power at all?
TIA
John
Montemar
Well-Known Member
I have a cunning plan.
Get the USAF up and running and leave it until the antifoul has all worn away thus saving unnecessary work cleaning the hull prior to a nice, new smooth AF coat.
This couldn't possibly work could it?
Get the USAF up and running and leave it until the antifoul has all worn away thus saving unnecessary work cleaning the hull prior to a nice, new smooth AF coat.
This couldn't possibly work could it?