wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:12:28 -0400, "Armond Perretta"
wrote:

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"Armond Perretta" wrote in message

... I took a new gallon of Trinidad, split it in half, ... added ...
about one half quart of last year's paint, and then [brought]
the volume to about three quarts in each ... can. This means
the paint was thinned about 25 to 27 percent ...

.... But what you did is an illusion. You
added volume by adding thinner. This will not harm the paint but it
will reduce the thickness of each coat as the excess thinner will
evaporated of sublimate resulting in a thinner coating than if the
paint had not been thinned. What it amounts to is you fooled yourself
into thinking you had more paint while all you really accomplished is
making extra work for yourself in that you have to add at least one
more coat to acquire the thickness you would have had with fewer
coats using paint that was not thinned ...

I'm not sure "illusion" is a good description of my thinking. I am aware
that I am covering the same surface area with less active material (in
this
case somewhere between 72 and 75% of the cuprous oxide active ingredient I
have applied in the past). The question is: "Will this attempt to cut
expenses result in satisfactory single season performance for my
particular
application, when compared with standard application methods?"

Can you comment based on your own experience?

I would not expect it to perform as well. Ablative paints depend on
adhesion to the hull, AND adhesion to itself. Without that much
thinner, the paint is not going to be as strong. My guess is that it
is not only a thinner layer, but it will ablate much faster.

Duh. Trinidad is not ablative paint! Trinidad is a hard, scrubbable epoxy
based paint.


Wilbur Hubbard

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:33:16 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:12:28 -0400, "Armond Perretta"
wrote:

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"Armond Perretta" wrote in message

... I took a new gallon of Trinidad, split it in half, ... added ...
about one half quart of last year's paint, and then [brought]
the volume to about three quarts in each ... can. This means
the paint was thinned about 25 to 27 percent ...

.... But what you did is an illusion. You
added volume by adding thinner. This will not harm the paint but it
will reduce the thickness of each coat as the excess thinner will
evaporated of sublimate resulting in a thinner coating than if the
paint had not been thinned. What it amounts to is you fooled yourself
into thinking you had more paint while all you really accomplished is
making extra work for yourself in that you have to add at least one
more coat to acquire the thickness you would have had with fewer
coats using paint that was not thinned ...

I'm not sure "illusion" is a good description of my thinking. I am aware
that I am covering the same surface area with less active material (in
this
case somewhere between 72 and 75% of the cuprous oxide active ingredient I
have applied in the past). The question is: "Will this attempt to cut
expenses result in satisfactory single season performance for my
particular
application, when compared with standard application methods?"

Can you comment based on your own experience?

I would not expect it to perform as well. Ablative paints depend on
adhesion to the hull, AND adhesion to itself. Without that much
thinner, the paint is not going to be as strong. My guess is that it
is not only a thinner layer, but it will ablate much faster.

Duh. Trinidad is not ablative paint! Trinidad is a hard, scrubbable epoxy
based paint.


Wilbur Hubbard


In that case, he really screwed up, as the structure of the cured
paint will be wrong and the copper will be unable to leach out
properly. He may as well forget bottom paint and just dive on the boat
weekly. That will really save some money, and give him some excercise.