On Dec 4, 10:28 pm, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
Has anyone experience with anti fouling paints for cruising sailboats
that are in the water 100% of the time in tropical waters. ...

I've had a bit of experience with this. Sadly, I don't know of any
really effective bottom paints for the tropics if you hope to take
more than six months between haul outs. We basically depend on
periodic mechanical removal of fouling. We've tried a copper/epoxy
hard coat system -- it sucked -- and several ablative copper paints.
I've had the paints professionally spray applied and have rolled them
myself. The ablatives, the best that money can buy, from Altex, Devoe
and Interlux (with and w/o anti-slime), all pretty much work the
same. We get a month or two with no growth. After that soft growth
that can easily be wiped off but which has serious performance
implications grows all over the hull and grass grows on the
waterline. As time passes the paint wears off all the sharp edges and
along the water line and we start getting shell build up there. By
about the six month period it seems that the paints have little anti-
fouling capability at all but they are soft so it is still easy to
remove the stuff that grows all over them. From that point on more
and more aggressive polishing is required and the only good news is
that the bottom will be pretty clean of paint when you are ready to
haul it and start over... Considering what a tin of top shelf anti-
fouling goes for these days the results I've gotten have been
extraordinarily disappointing.

-- Tom.

I have heard that cayenne pepper powder (the really hot stuff) mixed with
paint is a great help with barnacles. I assume this is used with ablative
paint, but have no personnal knowledge myself if this is true. Has anyone
else tried this?
Steve

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
Has anyone experience with anti fouling paints for cruising sailboats
that are in the water 100% of the time in tropical waters. Like most
cruisers we sail some of the time but the boat sits there a lot.

Before the demise of TBT paints I used Jotun HB-66 and got 3 years
plus out of a paint job. Since there is no more TBT I have talked to
everyone I meet that has painted their boats recently and I get a
uniform "it ain't no good" response to everyone, no matter what paint
they used. Cheap stuff or the top of the line International paints the
answer seems to be the same.

As I have two boats to paint in the next few months if anyone has any
positive experience with legal anti fouling paints I would be really
glad to hear about them.

I can still get old fashion copper bottom paint here in Thailand and
unless someone tells me about something that really works I think I'm
going to go with the old fashioned stuff. It worked pretty good 40
years ago and it should work pretty good today, which is better then
the reports I've been getting on the new expensive stuff. To quote an
old Aussie I know, "if you gotta scrub it every month you might as
well use barn paint".

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:22:16 +0100, "Steve Lusardi"
wrote:

I have heard that cayenne pepper powder (the really hot stuff) mixed with
paint is a great help with barnacles. I assume this is used with ablative
paint, but have no personnal knowledge myself if this is true. Has anyone
else tried this?
Steve

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
Has anyone experience with anti fouling paints for cruising sailboats
that are in the water 100% of the time in tropical waters. Like most
cruisers we sail some of the time but the boat sits there a lot.

Before the demise of TBT paints I used Jotun HB-66 and got 3 years
plus out of a paint job. Since there is no more TBT I have talked to
everyone I meet that has painted their boats recently and I get a
uniform "it ain't no good" response to everyone, no matter what paint
they used. Cheap stuff or the top of the line International paints the
answer seems to be the same.

As I have two boats to paint in the next few months if anyone has any
positive experience with legal anti fouling paints I would be really
glad to hear about them.

I can still get old fashion copper bottom paint here in Thailand and
unless someone tells me about something that really works I think I'm
going to go with the old fashioned stuff. It worked pretty good 40
years ago and it should work pretty good today, which is better then
the reports I've been getting on the new expensive stuff. To quote an
old Aussie I know, "if you gotta scrub it every month you might as
well use barn paint".

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)


That was hacked over some time ago, if I remember correctly, and the
final consensus was that the barnacles eat chili peppers too. :-}
Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)

On 2007-12-08 06:22:05 -0500, Bruce in Bangkok said:

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:22:16 +0100, "Steve Lusardi"
wrote:

I have heard that cayenne pepper powder (the really hot stuff) mixed
with paint is a great help with barnacles. I assume this is used with
ablative paint, but have no personnal knowledge myself if this is true.
Has anyone else tried this?
Steve

That was hacked over some time ago, if I remember correctly, and the
final consensus was that the barnacles eat chili peppers too. :-}

On the Chesapeake, they seem to consider pepper a delicacy.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

In article ,
"Steve Lusardi" wrote:

I have heard that cayenne pepper powder (the really hot stuff) mixed with
paint is a great help with barnacles. I assume this is used with ablative
paint, but have no personnal knowledge myself if this is true. Has anyone
else tried this?
Steve

No personal experience, but maybe the following link might help:
http://www.rya.org.uk/KnowledgeBase/...ntifouling.htm
Not unnecessarily polluting the oceans seems to be a good idea to me.

HTH

Marc

--
remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail
http://www.heusser.com

Jere Lull wrote:
On 2007-12-08 06:22:05 -0500, Bruce in Bangkok
said:

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:22:16 +0100, "Steve Lusardi"
wrote:

I have heard that cayenne pepper powder (the really hot stuff) mixed
with paint is a great help with barnacles. I assume this is used with
ablative paint, but have no personnal knowledge myself if this is
true. Has anyone else tried this?
Steve

That was hacked over some time ago, if I remember correctly, and the
final consensus was that the barnacles eat chili peppers too. :-}

On the Chesapeake, they seem to consider pepper a delicacy.


Someone earlier mentioned Interlux Optima. I think you will find it
has been discontinued. They say is was good but didn't catch on because
it was water based and so people assumed it was no good. A few dealers
still have some in stock but it will soon be gone.
Gordon

"Marc Heusser" d wrote in
message ...

No personal experience, but maybe the following link might help:
http://www.rya.org.uk/KnowledgeBase/...ntifouling.htm
Not unnecessarily polluting the oceans seems to be a good idea to me.


Here is some idiot who admits to having no personal experience but who must
open his pie-hole as if his ignorant comments have some merit. Then the fool
compounds his folly by concluding with a statement about polluting the
oceans as if one sailboat or all the sailboats in the world combined, for
that matter, make one iota of difference when it comes to "polluting the
ocean" with their bottom paint.

Calculate the volume of water in the oceans of the world and divide by the
totally insignificant amount of bottom paint toxin leeching from yacht
bottoms and it amounts to perhaps one drop of mercury in the Great Lakes. As
if that's gonna pollute anything at all.Time for you, Marc, and all the
other environmentalist nut cases to get real with your irrationality.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 16:46:00 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Time for you, Marc, and all the
other environmentalist nut cases to get real with your irrationality.

Nearly always futile to challenge another's religion, Neal.


Yet you do it all the time... interesting.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 16:46:00 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"Marc Heusser" d wrote
in
message ...

No personal experience, but maybe the following link might help:
http://www.rya.org.uk/KnowledgeBase/...ntifouling.htm
Not unnecessarily polluting the oceans seems to be a good idea to me.


Here is some idiot who admits to having no personal experience but who
must
open his pie-hole as if his ignorant comments have some merit. Then the
fool
compounds his folly by concluding with a statement about polluting the
oceans as if one sailboat or all the sailboats in the world combined, for
that matter, make one iota of difference when it comes to "polluting the
ocean" with their bottom paint.

Calculate the volume of water in the oceans of the world and divide by the
totally insignificant amount of bottom paint toxin leeching from yacht
bottoms and it amounts to perhaps one drop of mercury in the Great Lakes.
As
if that's gonna pollute anything at all.Time for you, Marc, and all the
other environmentalist nut cases to get real with your irrationality.

Wilbur Hubbard


If all of the yachts of the world were kept evenly distributed over the
entire
surface area of all of the bodies of water in the world, you would
probably be
correct. The problem is that the yachts of the world are clustered
together in
little harbors, nooks and crannies where the effects get concentrated.
Shellfish
beds, for one, are not out in the middle of the ocean. They are located in
the
same shalow, confined coastal areas where all those boats and yachts are
kept.



The fool said "oceans." He was concerned about the oceans being polluted by
bottom paint on yachts. I said oceans are in NO DANGER from anti-fouling on
yacht bottoms. I am correct.

Stick to the subject.

But, since you changed the subject I will say you, too, are full of ****.
Show me a scientific study, any scientific study that PROVES yacht bottom
paint has had a detrimental effect on shellfish beds or any other marine
ecosystem for that matter. You won't find any such study. You might find a
few where land run-off was involved - chemical plants, etc. But, that's
another story. Why penalize yachts for the indiscretions of landlubbers?


Wilbur Hubbard

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:08:18 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 16:46:00 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"Marc Heusser" d wrote in
message ...

No personal experience, but maybe the following link might help:
http://www.rya.org.uk/KnowledgeBase/...ntifouling.htm
Not unnecessarily polluting the oceans seems to be a good idea to me.


Here is some idiot who admits to having no personal experience but who must
open his pie-hole as if his ignorant comments have some merit. Then the fool
compounds his folly by concluding with a statement about polluting the
oceans as if one sailboat or all the sailboats in the world combined, for
that matter, make one iota of difference when it comes to "polluting the
ocean" with their bottom paint.

Calculate the volume of water in the oceans of the world and divide by the
totally insignificant amount of bottom paint toxin leeching from yacht
bottoms and it amounts to perhaps one drop of mercury in the Great Lakes. As
if that's gonna pollute anything at all.Time for you, Marc, and all the
other environmentalist nut cases to get real with your irrationality.

Wilbur Hubbard


If all of the yachts of the world were kept evenly distributed over the entire
surface area of all of the bodies of water in the world, you would probably be
correct. The problem is that the yachts of the world are clustered together in
little harbors, nooks and crannies where the effects get concentrated. Shellfish
beds, for one, are not out in the middle of the ocean. They are located in the
same shalow, confined coastal areas where all those boats and yachts are kept.

While Wilbur's calculation is perhaps a bit on the wide side I suspect
that to a large extent he may have the right of it. Studies were
performed at various harbors and problems with shell fish were found.
However, to the best of my knowledge all the harbors studied were
commercial harbors.

Secondly you will remember that initially commercial shipping was
exempted from the ban on TBT, the argument was used that commercial
shipping spends little time in port while pleasure craft just sit
there leaching TBT.

But, I suspect that if the original calculations were to have been
based on area of underwater painted area times hours of exposure
inside the port limits you might have some different results.

A 1,000 foot container ship has a tremendous underwater area. The Emma
Maersk for example is 1302' 6" LOA, Beam - 183' 8" and the draft is
50' 10" while my sail boat is 39' 10" long, 13' 6" breadth and draws
6'.

If you use a simple calculation with port, starboard and bottom as
flat plates (which isn't accurate worth a damn, but will serve to
illustrate my point) then the Emma Maersk has an underwater surface
(loaded) of 371,733.5 square feet. Using the same method, my sailboat
has just about 1,000 square feet of underwater area. Thus for every
one day in port for the Emma Maersk she leaches out the equal amount
of TBT that my boat does in 371.7 days.

I'm sure that Roger could refine these numbers with his computer but
they do serve to indicate that perhaps politics played some part in
banning pleasure boats use of TBT first since pleasure boats seldom
belong to any pressure groups and commercial shipping companies have
tremendous clout in maritime affairs.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)