Unreacted Coppercoat

A simple chemical test will tell you if there is any copper there, but looking at it with a magnifying glass, or even young eyes, will tell you the same. What neither will do is tell you if there is anything else there as well, that might prevent the A/F from working. A chemical analysis is the only way you can do this, using electron microscopy with EDAX is the easiest and cheapest, requiring only a single grain of powder. It will still cost you £200 + though.
 
It will still cost you £200 + though

Thanks for the advice. I think I've spent just about enough on the whole ill-starred project so far though.

I wonder if the only solution is to accept that on a mooring at West Mersea, nothing works, and scrub off every month until the end of time.

Ultrasonic antifoul? Anyone used it?
 
TimfromMersea said:
If the boat were mine I would be looking at trying some simple chemical tests to determine if there was any metallic copper exposed on the surface. A quantitave test would be nice to do but would involve fairly extensive laboratory facilities or a substantial bill from an analyical chemistry laboratory.

Could you give me an idea of any tests that you had in mind? (I had an old fashioned grammar school education and thus learnt Latin, Classics, History etc - Science was not something that in those days was seen fit for gentlemen to learn about.............)
Click to expand...
OK, some ideas for testing for copper:

Use some wet/dry paper to abrade the surface and mop up the resulting slurry which will contain particles of the coating. Dry it on a piece of kitchen towel and you'll end up with a powder you can test.

Flame test: you hold a sample of the powder in a gas flame and any copper will result in a blue-green flame. You have to be careful not to get a false positive from whatever you use to hold the powder so if you use a teaspoon handle for example, try it without powder first.

Acid test: dissolve the powder using acid. As has been said, Sulphuric will give blue copper sulphate. You can't buy sulphuric acid but you could extract a very small amount from a car battery (using a dropper, NEVER syphon by sucking!!).

If my diagnosis of a layer of pure epoxy covering the surface, a light sand will produce only resin in the powder. Sanding deeper will produce a distinct sheen of metallic copper, no need for further tests.
 
Vyv Cox's idea of inspecting the surface with a magnifying lens is worth a try but any instrumental analysis will cost unless you know anyone who can do something on the side.

Not so sure about Twisted Ken's suggestion because dilute sulphuric acid will only react with metallic copper slowly although it will dissolve any oxide esp if warm. Copper sulphate in dilute solution is not very highly coloured but if an excess of ammonia solution is added the very highly coloured ammine complex is formed. That would be quite a sensitive test once any copper is brought into solution.

I was thinking along the same lines as Snowleopard, namely to abrade an area with some medium grade aluminium oxide or silicon carbide paper and then examine what was collected on the paper.

Flame test is a good idea. Ideally done using a drop of hydrochloric acid and a platinum wire to pick up a little of the removed material. I suppose not every one has platinum wire though but a short length of nichrome wire will do. Whatever is used it will be necessary to burn off any contamination first. Getting rid of the intense yellow sodium flame will be the problem I suspect.

With some basic laboratory facilities, even a school lab would do, I would do as Snowleopard suggests to collect a sample of the surface layer, dissolve the copper, if there is any, in concentrated nitric acid and then examine that solution. A flame test on that or dilute and neutralise with ammonia solution. Deep blue solution = copper.
 
TimfromMersea said:
The short answer is 'no' - they have not given me a complete refund, merely refunded enough to make me believe that the alternative (which was Court action) was not worthwhile. The money refunded was only about 1/3rd of the total cost of the work, including two separate applications, six or seven scrubs a year for the last four years, etc etc. Nothing has been paid for the time and angst over the whole matter. Had it been Court action, solicitors had already advised me that I should claim for the whole cost over the years, suitable allowance for time and trouble and so on.
Click to expand...

You seem to have scrubbed it an awful lot however at no point do you mention abrading the surface. Have you as others suggest actually attcked the surface to ensure that the copper IS EXPOSED and not hiding under a skin of epoxy.

If it is exposed you will see it change colour when you rub it down. There are a few boats round here with this type of protection and they are rubbed down every winter!!!
 
Thanks

I have personally myself rubbed it down with a green scourer (as recommended in the instructions from the suppliers) and it has also been back to the applying yard twice and they have abraded it with power sanders.

I don't, therefore, think it is lack of rubbing down that is the problem. There is some reason why the copper is not oxidising. I can't understand why.
 
Tim

I think that you will find that the green scourer is fine to reactivate the copper, but if you are rubbing away at solid epoxy it will be useless.

"it has also been back to the applying yard twice and they have abraded it with power sanders. "

Mmm, if there is doubt that the yard has done a proper job in the first place, who's to say they have done what they say now? Did you see the boat, before and after the sanding?

If in fact they have done a proper job with the sanding then you are right, there is a problem with the copper, in which case you need to test it as described by our resident chemist.
 
Thanks. When I used the 'green scourers' I saw that small pinheads of shiny bright metal were revealed as I rubbed the hull. As to whether these were copper, I don't know. I think I will need to do the 'resident chemists' tests'.

What may be significant is that 'under the pads' - i.e. where the laying up cradle was - there are four square of hull that have gone green, and when the boat is scrubbed, these are four clean (ish) patches in the overall fouling on the hull.

Any ideas anyone?
 
Tim

I have four 'squares' as you correctly identify, these are where the boat would have been in a cradle when the work was done, the boat would then have been moved slightly so that the untreated areas could be done. By the sound of it they have done a good job there!

I would lay money that the hull has a covering of epoxy over the copper, most likely caused by the copper powder not being constantly mixed during application. As I suggested in an early post, if you work an area with wet and dry paper (wet) then you should see a run off, a brownish colour, that is the copper, if you don't see it, your still rubbing away at epoxy, work a little harder. If you do see a copper run off, back to the resident chemist.
 
Any ideas anyone?
Click to expand...
Apologies if you have already done so but I think the whole saga should be referred to "Aquarius Marine Coatings" They are apparently the manufacturer and should be able to put one of their technologists on to the case.

It is perhaps a pity you accepted a part refund from the yard who applied it. You should have had a full refund IMHO.
 
galadriel said:
I would lay money that the hull has a covering of epoxy over the copper, most likely caused by the copper powder not being constantly mixed during application.
Click to expand...
That sounds a likely explanation. I wonder if the person who applied it tried to 'eke out' the last coat by tipping in a bit of extra resin.
 
Thanks for the opinions. Just to be clear, the payment I received was from the manufacturers and was accepted as an alternative to my instructing solicitors.

The first application was done by myself and the local yard. I know that the copper was mixed properly then as I did it myself. The coating did not work at all - similar problems to those I have now - and the manufacturers suggested that this was a result of poor application. As I had no way of disproving this I had no alternative but to agree to their suggestion of the boat being re-treated at a yard recommended by them. It was done at a cost subsidised by them but still involved a substantial payment from me.

The problems that I am having now are essentially the same. The manufacturers have had every opportunity to become involved, but although the boat has been back to the applying yard, I do not believe that the manufacturers have been to see it.

I suspect that they will not wish to become involved any more having paid a partial refund. I know that I should simply paint over it. But I can't help but wonder why it has not oxidised, or why parts of it have and parts have not. That's why I made the original post here.
 
At the beginning of the season I applied Coppercoat to my boat and am quite pleased with the result. On the Coppercoat itself I found only one barnacle, compared to the prop, which had not been antifouled, which had at least 100 barnacles on it.

I had the complete underwater section slurry blast, exposed glassfibre was treated with International Watertite, although in hindsight Gelshield 2000 may have been the better option. Two thick primer layers of Hycote and then 4-5 coats of Coppercoat (8-10 coats on the waterline).

The waterline has turned green (as expected, Copper Oxide) and the rest has darkened. It took about one hour with the high pressure water jet to remove slime and a shovel full of mussels (not enough for one portion of "moules au vin") that had attached themselves to the anodes and areas where I had applied extra sealant.

The rep from Coppercoat told me that the antifouling effect increases with time, and that there is no reason to try to reactivate the shiny copper sheen, but if I wanted too, a kitchen scouring pad would be more than adequate.

Pictures of the renovation can be found at his web address:

http://gallery.me.com/sclements/100053

Here is a picture what the underside looked like before wash down!
 
galadriel said:
It has worked for me, and I believe, a good many others. The photo is of Galadriels rudder 8 months after its last scrub. The rudder I believe is a high fouling area as it is exposed to more sunlight. You will see some beardy type grass near the water line, this we find is common, we do not get any marine life, only grass and slime.

IMG_1713.jpg


I dont think you can get away without drying out and scrubbing, although some have, but as you will see, like anchor and col reg threads, there is a broad difference of opinion.

I applied the coppercoat myself, and yes you do have a comeback if it is done professionally, but if you do the prep as it tells you, and you stick exactly to the instructions you can do a job equally as well as any professional, if not better. After all its your boat, if the lad who is rolling it on at the yard is working his notice, has had a row with his girlfriend, or got a hang over, the last thing he cares about is your boat.
Click to expand...

This year I did a lift, hold and jet off. The result is a disaster, I have growth like this everywhere. I don't have any barnacles but the boat is covered with grass and weed. The boat was launched in March and now needs jetting off badly, but the grass and slime formed very quickly after launch so this season has been somewhat less than enjoyable as we have been so slow compared to previous years.

My question is this, do boats that are anti fouled each year also get slime and grass growing? When I look at my neighbouring boats it does not appear so but, I don't know if they are being scrubbed etc.
 
Last edited:
I had Coppercoat applied over the winter. The bottom was sand blasted back to the 1998 osmosis treatment. Although moisture levels were low i took the opportunity to have an extra coat of epoxy prior to the coppercoat. I supplied the epoxy barrier coat. It was black in clour and this caused an issue with the yard that was applying it. After 4 thin coats of coppercoat you could still see the black epoxy through the copper. It sound stange but you could. They applied a fifth coat and it was ok. The bottom wasnt abraded before launch but within a week the hull had gone green above the waterline. We have been in the water since end of April and in ther clear water of Holyhead marina there is no evident growth. I will get my wetsuit on later in the month when we are on holiday and have a good look underneath, but so far, all looks good.
 
Ours only goes green below the waterline when out of the water. I think you are lucky because when a boat is freshly coated a large percentage of the copper is below the surface of the epoxy, normally polishing is required to expose much more of the copper. Perhaps the lower water temperatures in Wales are helping.
 
Is this mad, or would some abrasion in 2 different places and then test to see if there is conductivity using multimeter, prove the copper was there? Or scrape a patch off and do some wet chemistry tests to see if copper is in the mix?

If it is mad, is that because a copperbot boat will not show electrical conductivity because of resin mix?

Edit, sorry didn't read the posts between pages 2 and 6 and can now see that some chemistry has been talked about. Will go back to see if electrical conductivity was talked about too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

R
Brokers.
Replies
6
Views
486
Irish Rover
Irish Rover
PaulJ
Galapagos
Replies
5
Views
304
dansaskip
dansaskip
S
Amiable demands for money!
Replies
15
Views
830
penberth3
P

Share this page

Top