What I might did wrong with my antifauling?

[[185615]]

Problem there may be one side faces the sun a lot more? A few stripes alternating on the same side will give better results?
Due to having lots of leftovers from most brands i painted my sailing boat one year in all different colours and brands around the whole hull..
Just under a year later i dried the boat out and the whole hull had a very even coating of growth ! So the cheapest did just as well, or just as bad as the most expensive !

Good point, will do each side one half chilli and the other half without. Also opposite each other to balance things out.
Im have heard similar results elsewhere, I do buy the cheapest I can.
There is rather a lot of duck poo spoken about antifoul, stick with what works for you.

 

[pvb]

See #36

I did, and I don't understand it.

Answer:
YES. I do believe business wouldnt,add chilli powder regardless of its efficay, and make it known they do.
Reasons:
Business is quite rightly about making profits for shareholders, and much else, profits mean taxes that provides so much to society.
Basic business sense demands a product that is not only fit for purpose , but not easily duplicatable by any competitor.

This doesn't make much sense. All antifouls basically contain copper oxide, so they are easily copied. Chilli powder wouldn't need to be declared on the Safety Data sheet, so could be concealed, so there's no commercial reason not to include it if it works. But, as we know, it doesn't.

 

[pvb]

There is rather a lot of duck poo spoken about antifoul

You can say that again!

 

[[185615]]

Ok I shall, There is rather a lot of duck poo spoken about antifoul.

 

[[185615]]

I did, and I don't understand it.



This doesn't make much sense. All antifouls basically contain copper oxide, so they are easily copied. Chilli powder wouldn't need to be declared on the Safety Data sheet, so could be concealed, so there's no commercial reason not to include it if it works. But, as we know, it doesn't.

If that is the case why do the various manufactuers make claims about their product as the best .
The run of the mill boat owner has little or no idea, and even less interest in what the product contains, yes of course some do, but the majority read the blurb and hope and depend on its veracity.
If a manufacturer, were suddenly to advertise his product contained what is easily available to all and sundry, would that not be, from a business point of view ie sales, a rather foolish thing to do?
You may not agree..fine.. but please no more pretence as to understanding.
Sales means turnover, turnover includes profits, and profits produce the oil that societies machinery depends on.
Of course, if you have objections to profits that is entirely a matter for you.

 

[pvb]

If a manufacturer, were suddenly to advertise his product contained what is easily available to all and sundry, would that not be, from a business point of view ie sales, a rather foolish thing to do?

Being open and honest about common ingredients has worked well for lots of companies.

 

[[185615]]

Being open and honest about common ingredients has worked well for lots of companies.

That is very true, but, such openess ONLY works where there is a competitive advantage for the company concerned, and it can safely declare such advantage protected by patent, and that is only one example.
All companies view their product constituents as their intellectual property, strictly safeguarded as to chemical composition, quantities etc etc. This is one of the reasons why directors demand such high incomes, and good ones head hunted, because they have a track record of making good decisions. Companies do not lightly disclose a products content, unless or until they are 99% certain sales will not be compromised, or conversely they have reasons to believe they will be substantially increased, a gamble always, but only following long agonising weeks sometimes years of contemplation, so may factors to be taken into account, before a decision is made.
Boardrooms are not the place for the faint hearted.
Which is why I relied YES to your question at #35. If they did they would certainly not announce it for all the above reasons.
It was, your question at #35 that is, a rhetorical or more hypothetical one than could be considered in a practical sense.
Whether it works is in the eye of the beholder, I repeat, I have no other evidence to support my claims, which in my previous posts have made abundantly clear, I revere science that proves conclusively its contentions, that said I reserve the right to follow the evidence of my eyes in my particular circumstances when and how I see fit, as should everone else without the adverse often unpleasant (i do not refer to yourself) replies from those who take pleasure in doing so.

 

[Spirit (of Glenans)]

If that is the case why do the various manufactuers make claims about their product as the best .
The run of the mill boat owner has little or no idea, and even less interest in what the product contains, yes of course some do, but the majority read the blurb and hope and depend on its veracity.
If a manufacturer, were suddenly to advertise his product contained what is easily available to all and sundry, would that not be, from a business point of view ie sales, a rather foolish thing to do?
You may not agree..fine.. but please no more pretence as to understanding.
Sales means turnover, turnover includes profits, and profits produce the oil that societies machinery depends on.
Of course, if you have objections to profits that is entirely a matter for you.

Most accountants and financial experts will tell you that turnover does not necessarily include profits ?.

 

[[185615]]

Most accountants and financial experts will tell you that turnover does not necessarily include profits ?.

Correct. Turnover can mean a number of things, and to the unitiated be confusing.
However, my use of the word turnover was used in the normal understanding, that is income that is derived from sales, regardless of payment methods, and includes the debtors account for the same period as turnover.
Profits occur after deducting cost of sales which, depending on the type of business can include all expenses connected to the production of a product. That is gross profit.
Deducting rentals, utilities etc from gross gives you operating profit, from which taxes, loan charges if any gives you a Nett profit.
If however there isnt any then you may be operating insolvently, and continuing to do so is a serious offence.

Most accountants and financial experts, God save us from them, are not businessmen, entrepreneurs, traders, risk takers, and as such are rarely involved in decision making at boardroom level, other than their submitted reports.

 

[[185615]]

Being open and honest about common ingredients has worked well for lots of companies.

If I may add further comments to your contention.
It does seem to imply that some businesses are therefore dishonest for none disclosure, that is simply incorrect.
Nothing dishonest in keeping ingredients a trade secret.

 

[stu9000]

Area either the Swale on on the Medway.

I am also on the Medway. Previously on a drying mud berth which was better for fouling but i did not fancy the tea staining much. Now on a swing mooring.
Cheap Hempel classic at £35 a tin was a false economy as after a summer the boat had serious fouling. Took longer to clean and was significantly slower through the water.

I moved onto Seajet Shogun 033 at £95 a tin. Ouch. But if I am going to the faff of drying the boat out, scraping, jet washing then painting it seemed a false economy to go too cheap.

I keep the boat in the water all year round. To AF I dry out for a tide against the wall. The time constraint only allows for one coat. THe idea is that if I do not cheap out on the paint one coat is enough... maybe. The tin is 2.5 L and it was not v warm so the paint went on thick. But one tin isnt really enough for one proper coat on the Westerly 35 hull.

I never considered copper coating but at nearly £200 a year for paint plus the hassle I wonder whether it is worth another look.

 

[stu9000]

Plus adding in the strongest chilli powder you can buy.

DOes this actually work?...


... ah reading back a bit further I see the debate on this is ongoing

 

[pvb]

If I may add further comments to your contention.
It does seem to imply that some businesses are therefore dishonest for none disclosure, that is simply incorrect.
Nothing dishonest in keeping ingredients a trade secret.

That's merely your inference.

 

[pvb]

DOes this actually work?...

No.

Chilli Powder in Anti-fouling

 

[Seashoreman]

DOes this actually work?...


... ah reading back a bit further I see the debate on this is ongoing

I really do wonder why no one has taken the trouble to inquire of a Cirripedologist on this matter.
My little knowledge of the effect of chilli powder on barnacles and weed tells me that they are not human and such organic
materials etc do not react to chilli in any similar way. I conclude that this debate is total nonsense and will in due coarse contact a University Research Establishment or similar to get definitive proof to put an end to such human-centric beliefs.
Barnacles and weeds do not have taste buds in my knowledge.
Any educated scientists on board?

 

[AntarcticPilot]

DOes this actually work?...


... ah reading back a bit further I see the debate on this is ongoing

There are theoretical reasons why it won't, because a) the organisms concerned don't have receptors for capsaicin, the stuff in chili that gives the hot sensation, and b) the heat is only a sensation; if the organisms can't react to it (and most fouling organisms can't; they have no locomotory organs) then it can't influence them.

Further, at least one member of these fora did a trial, with chili added to part of his bottom and not to another and found that the growth was considerably worse on the chili.

Finally, the economic argument is nonsense. Fouling on commercial craft is a major economic concern; there is a vast amount of research going on into effective anti-fouling systems - one of the outcomes being the "slippery" antifouls, which are sadly only effective on vessels that move almost constantly at speeds higher than most sailing vessels. But these have drawbacks, and so research continues into systems that interfere with biofilm formation and other things - I cannot say too much as I learnt a lot under non-disclosure conditions. It suffices to say that if chili was effective, it would be well known and widely used.

 

[LONG_KEELER]

D

 

[Iliade]

Going back to the original issue: The keel had two coats. Presumably from the bottom of the tin?

Next time power stirring the antifoul for quite a while would be a good idea, especially if the tin has lain around for a while.

I used the same stuff, also in a mud berth, and after ten months I don't need to scrub, yet...

 

[slawosz]

Next time power stirring the antifoul for quite a while would be a good idea, especially if the tin has lain around for a while.

Will do! Will buy proper stirrer. I bought paint soon after lockdown (first one) eased, so this could be the case.

Regarding false economy - I got my boat in June 2019 just antifouled, and previous owner claimed he put Flag on her. After 4 months in the water, there was just a slime. Hence trying the Flag again. But I am more and more inclined to Coppercoat the boat. Coppercoat said it would cost 400 quid, which is reasonable (4 x good antifouling, as my owner association says you need 2.5 liters for 2 coats + bit on edges). Although I need to do investigation, as some people in my club claims CC does not work so well. Although I don't mind to swim mid-season and clean up the hull, so with CC I can use more aggressive tools.

 

[slawosz]

Boat antifouled. Used small (4 inch) short mohair like rollers. Stirred very well with mechanical stirrer. I have managed to put 2 layers on entire underwater section + extra layer everywhere except keel. Leadin edges have extra layers. Will post pictures after season how it went.