|
Bottom Paints
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) |
Bottom Paints
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:28:08 +0700, 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. Like most cruisers we sail some of the time but the boat sits there a lot. I have a cruising trawler that is in the water all year, of which about 8 months are tropical. I'm using Interlux Micron Optima which was highly rated by Practical Sailor for tropical usage. The paint is doing a great job. Check your gmail account for more info. |
Bottom Paints
"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) Ask at your local paint or hardware store. There is a mold inhibitor made for exterior house paints. It contains TBT. You can use it as an additive with a good, copper-based, epoxy paint such as Petit Trinidad SR. It actually works better than the original TBT paints such as Tri-Lux. The brand name is DI-ALL liquid mildewcide. It comes in 1.1 oz bottles one of which is to be mixed with a gallon of paint. I use 4 bottles to a gallon since the active ingredient tributyltin (bis oxide) is listed as 25% of the one ounce. I'm going on five years of cruising and mooring with a bottom of eight coats of Trinidad and it's not dead yet though it needs a good scrubbing every three months or so. Unfortunately, it seems DI-ALL is difficult or impossible to find anymore in the US but I anticipated that and purchased 36 bottles about ten years ago ($5.49 each) back when it was readily available. It wouldn't surprise me if, in a backwoods like Thailand, it was still readily available. Wilbur Hubbard |
Bottom Paints
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:17:10 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:28:08 +0700, 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. Like most cruisers we sail some of the time but the boat sits there a lot. I have a cruising trawler that is in the water all year, of which about 8 months are tropical. I'm using Interlux Micron Optima which was highly rated by Practical Sailor for tropical usage. The paint is doing a great job. Check your gmail account for more info. Got your email and replied. Two questions: What percent of the time since you applied the paint have you been underway and do you scrub the bottom at all? I ask this because from what I read most of the new paints are self polishing or ablutive and if you are always moving then they seem to work but if you stay at anchor very long they don't. The Aussie I mentioned painted his bottom 3 months ago and spent the time since at anchor except for one trip to Malaysia and back - say 250 miles. He tells me that he has almost as many barnacles on the bottom as he did when he went in the yard. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) |
Bottom Paints
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:14:48 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "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) Ask at your local paint or hardware store. There is a mold inhibitor made for exterior house paints. It contains TBT. You can use it as an additive with a good, copper-based, epoxy paint such as Petit Trinidad SR. It actually works better than the original TBT paints such as Tri-Lux. The brand name is DI-ALL liquid mildewcide. It comes in 1.1 oz bottles one of which is to be mixed with a gallon of paint. I use 4 bottles to a gallon since the active ingredient tributyltin (bis oxide) is listed as 25% of the one ounce. I'm going on five years of cruising and mooring with a bottom of eight coats of Trinidad and it's not dead yet though it needs a good scrubbing every three months or so. Unfortunately, it seems DI-ALL is difficult or impossible to find anymore in the US but I anticipated that and purchased 36 bottles about ten years ago ($5.49 each) back when it was readily available. It wouldn't surprise me if, in a backwoods like Thailand, it was still readily available. Wilbur Hubbard I can buy what is reputed to be pure TBT from a chemical shop in Penang but people that have tried it, mixing from small amounts to very large amounts, all reported that they had problems in (1) getting it mixed into the paint, and (2) in some cases the paint didn't harden. If I read your post correctly you are mixing TBT to paint at 0.78 percent TBT which is far lower then the cases I heard reported, the people that had the problems used as high as 10% by volume. I haven't specifically asked at a paint shop about an anti fungus/mold additive but I do know that the better quality latex house paints advertize "no fungus", which is a problem here in the rainy season, and their stuff does hold up. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) |
Bottom Paints
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:28:08 +0700, 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. Like most cruisers we sail some of the time but the boat sits there a lot. I have a cruising trawler that is in the water all year, of which about 8 months are tropical. I'm using Interlux Micron Optima which was highly rated by Practical Sailor for tropical usage. The paint is doing a great job. How often to you scrape or clean the hull while "down there"? When we had the Navigator in Jupiter, FL for a couple of years we had a diver do in the water hull cleaning once a month. Eisboch |
Bottom Paints
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:37:32 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote: Two questions: What percent of the time since you applied the paint have you been underway and do you scrub the bottom at all? Our boat is on the move a lot for 5 or 6 months of the year, and much less frequently the other 6 months. On average we have the bottom cleaned every 3 or 4 months. I ask this because from what I read most of the new paints are self polishing or ablutive and if you are always moving then they seem to work but if you stay at anchor very long they don't. The Aussie I mentioned painted his bottom 3 months ago and spent the time since at anchor except for one trip to Malaysia and back - say 250 miles. He tells me that he has almost as many barnacles on the bottom as he did when he went in the yard. There is no excuse for barnacles with good paint, properly applied. Something is wrong. |
Bottom Paints
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 04:07:01 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
How often to you scrape or clean the hull while "down there"? When we had the Navigator in Jupiter, FL for a couple of years we had a diver do in the water hull cleaning once a month. With a good ablative paint a light sponging off is all that is needed except around the waterline. We hire a diver every 3 months or so, mostly to check/change the zincs. |
Bottom Paints
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 04:07:01 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:28:08 +0700, 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. Like most cruisers we sail some of the time but the boat sits there a lot. I have a cruising trawler that is in the water all year, of which about 8 months are tropical. I'm using Interlux Micron Optima which was highly rated by Practical Sailor for tropical usage. The paint is doing a great job. How often to you scrape or clean the hull while "down there"? When we had the Navigator in Jupiter, FL for a couple of years we had a diver do in the water hull cleaning once a month. Eisboch Using Jotun HB-66, which contained TBT and is no longer sold I usually got the bottom wiped off every three or four months. There would be a few small barnacles along the water line and on the top of the rudder but the bulk of the hull would be clean of all but slime. In Singapore, where the water must be like liquid fertilizer, the chaps with the flashy motor yachts have the bottom cleaned twice a month. But, of course they all have full time boat boys too..... Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) |
Bottom Paints
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 06:14:12 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:37:32 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: Two questions: What percent of the time since you applied the paint have you been underway and do you scrub the bottom at all? Our boat is on the move a lot for 5 or 6 months of the year, and much less frequently the other 6 months. On average we have the bottom cleaned every 3 or 4 months. I ask this because from what I read most of the new paints are self polishing or ablutive and if you are always moving then they seem to work but if you stay at anchor very long they don't. The Aussie I mentioned painted his bottom 3 months ago and spent the time since at anchor except for one trip to Malaysia and back - say 250 miles. He tells me that he has almost as many barnacles on the bottom as he did when he went in the yard. There is no excuse for barnacles with good paint, properly applied. Something is wrong. Agreed and I'm trying to figure out what I'm going to use as literally everyone I have talked to over here is not having good luck with the post TBT paints. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) |
Bottom Paints
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. |
Bottom Paints
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) |
Bottom Paints
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) |
Bottom Paints
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/ |
Bottom Paints
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 |
Bottom Paints
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 |
Bottom Paints
"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 |
Bottom Paints
"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 |
Bottom Paints
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 |
Bottom Paints
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:42:19 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: 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 Google around and you can find quite a few studies that indicated that TBT leaching from anti fouling paint was the probable cause of TBT contamination in several harbors. There are also studies that showed the effect of different levels of TBT on different types of marine life. In general critters that ate other critters showed little or no reaction while filter feeders, clams, etc., showed quite a lot. In addition there are a number of studies and reports showing reaction to inhaling paint fumes where TBT was used in interior house paint. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) |
Bottom Paints
Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
.... 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. With the exception of a few major ports, and especially Navy ports (which often have dozens of idle ships) I think you might find that small boats have more surface "in port" than large ships. What I don't know is where the dividing line is ... where 100 tons ships exempted? In my home port, Boston, there are very very few 1000' ships. More typically, there are a small number of 500' ships, most of them turning around within a day. I was quite surprised the last time I went through the inner harbor (fall haulout) and there were as many as 8 ships coming, going, or docked. These ships are at most the equal of 200 pleasure boats, so this would be the equal of 1600 pleasure boats. I'm guessing there are at least that many boats in the inner harbor, and maybe three times that number in the extended harbor. Then we can look at nearby harbors (Scituate, Plymouth etc to the south, Marblehead, Salem, Manchester, Gloucester to the north) which have many more boats, but even less ship traffic. |
Bottom Paints
I keep my boat in brackish water, so I get a lot of fouling and quite
a few barnacles on the metals. I do haul for 3 months a year at present but the following may help. I prefer ablatives and to me the 'secret' is to apply them SMOOTH. Smooth will promote less surface adhesion of the fouling, and Ive noticed that I dont have to paint quite as often .... as when I used a 'roller' as the sole means to apply. My choice now is Interlux Micron Optima as it seems to be a little 'harder' than the previous versions plus it has some biocide that in the first 1- 2 years helps to retard the growth .... until it apparently leaches out and then you get only the ablative effect. How I apply ablatives so that they are smooth (I race my 'crab crusher' so a smooth bottom is a plus for light wind sailing) but in applying the stuff smooth Ive appreciated the 'other benefits' ... longer lasting, easily drops the crud when at hull speed, etc. With a roller apply on the first coat, let cure a bit and then with a sharp chisel carefully 'lift' a small section to see if thats the mil thickness I want. Let it fully cure - days. Then with a orbiting sander knock the just the tops off the paint pimples left by the roller - flat ... not much paint removed. Then with a large polyethylene trowel ( the kind used in fairing a 'male' plug when fiberglassing) apply a large 'stripe' of paint with the roller and immediately fair the wet paint with the trowel working quickly and working towards the 'wet edge'. Clean the trowel as the paint sticks or begins to dry on the trowel. Leave a few inches of dry surface and begin the next 'stripe', until all the way around the boat. Let these stripes cure and then go back and fill in all between the stripes. This will begin to fill all the valleys between the flat peaks that you sanded off. Then at a different angle to the first set of stripes ..... repeat. let cure. then repeat at a different angle, etc. until 'most' of the surface is flat. Continue at those areas that arent flat using a smaller trowel until the bottom is as smooth as a babys ass. A smooth surface on ablative will quickly drop the growth off when the boat is up to speed. The following year instead of re-painting, I simply put on a quick 'trowel' coat to fill in the areas that have 'roughened'. I only repaint when I see a different color of ablative showing through the top coat. You dont want ablative to become too thick as if it becomes 'thick' has the tendancy to come off in 'chunks'. BARNACLES For barnacles on underwater metals, I spray on Pettit 'zinc rich barnacle barrier' - spray can. The result is that I get 99% less barnacles on my running gear, throughhulls, and over the bottom paint thats over any metal thats connected to the bonding system and zincs, etc. If I dont get an occasional barnacle on those painted over underwater metals ... then I check my bonding system for 'open shorts, corrosion, etc. in the bond system' |
Bottom Paints
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message ... On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:42:19 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: 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 Google around and you can find quite a few studies that indicated that TBT leaching from anti fouling paint was the probable cause of TBT contamination in several harbors. There are also studies that showed the effect of different levels of TBT on different types of marine life. In general critters that ate other critters showed little or no reaction while filter feeders, clams, etc., showed quite a lot. In addition there are a number of studies and reports showing reaction to inhaling paint fumes where TBT was used in interior house paint. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) "Probably???" You call that scientific proof? Wilbur Hubbard |
Bottom Words
In article s.com,
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: 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. You lack respect for other human beings to start with. Then you seem to mistake modesty and caution for lack of knowledge or experience. 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. Then you continue to show no respect to other beings. 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. On you go with your pseudoscientific brabble. Man eg needs 2 micrograms of cobalamin per day - without that you will die. Yearly production of copper based paint in comparison to total ocean volume is about the same 1e11 relation. Which means the concentrations may well reach biologically active levels, especially since distribution is not uniform. Fish eg are well known to change from the antibaby-pills in the sewage. Time for you, Marc, and all the other environmentalist nut cases to get real with your irrationality. If you had taken the time to search eg PubMed, you would have found studies that prove you wrong. Try appropriate keywords and you will find articles in Biofouling, Journal of industrial microbiology and biotechnology, etc. Try this eg: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...4938&cmd=showd etailview Plus: What has not yet been proven is not necessarily false, if you know logic. Sometimes it is just lack of funds to conduct a study. Global warming has been dismissed by some of the same arguments - by now it is well proven. I do not mind you get the facts wrong - and conclusions are debatable as well. I will not however continue your mud-slinging disrespect ill suited to a generally helpful newsgroup. Take care Marc -- remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail http://www.heusser.com |
Bottom Paints
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:30:14 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:42:19 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: 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 Google around and you can find quite a few studies that indicated that TBT leaching from anti fouling paint was the probable cause of TBT contamination in several harbors. There are also studies that showed the effect of different levels of TBT on different types of marine life. In general critters that ate other critters showed little or no reaction while filter feeders, clams, etc., showed quite a lot. In addition there are a number of studies and reports showing reaction to inhaling paint fumes where TBT was used in interior house paint. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) "Probably???" You call that scientific proof? Wilbur Hubbard Wilbur I'm not going to do your research for you I'm sure you can find it yourself. "Probably cause" is also used in law - "probably cause to believe that this guy done it" - and away you go to the gray bar hotel. But it doesn't make any difference whether TBT makes the clams die or not. They done went and made a law. Now if you break it (and they catch you) they are going to get you. It no longer makes any difference whether you, or me, or anyone, else believes. Bruce-in-Bangkok (Note:remove underscores from address for reply) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com