Re: Copper bottom treatment?
Bill,
A good product for your purposes would be McLube's SailKote. It's
a dry lubricant, a souped-up, harder version of Teflon. It's GREAT
for all kinds of lubricating, from sail slides, door hinges, to bike
chains. Trailer sailors can buy it in liquid form (instead of the
aerosol), and paint it on below the waterline. It dries in seconds,
so you can put a bunch of coats on quickly. NOTHING will stick to it.
It'll work for a few days, and makes the slime that accumulates after
a week or so easy to hose off.
Dinghy racers, here in Annapolis, use it for regattas where they
have to keep the boats in the water for the duration - no dry
sailing. It works as advertised in the Chesapeake's primordial soup.
They also coat their spinnakers with it so they won't soak up water,
keeping them lighter. All the serious racers use it to spray their
rigs - sails slip around the mast and shrouds drastically easier.
It's the only true dry lubricant out their, so you can lube headstay
foils, mast tracks, travellers, and blocks without it picking up crud
that bleeds out of this stuff as that dull grey scunge.
Take care,
Pete
A good product for your purposes would be McLube's SailKote. It's
a dry lubricant, a souped-up, harder version of Teflon. It's GREAT
for all kinds of lubricating, from sail slides, door hinges, to bike
chains. Trailer sailors can buy it in liquid form (instead of the
aerosol), and paint it on below the waterline. It dries in seconds,
so you can put a bunch of coats on quickly. NOTHING will stick to it.
It'll work for a few days, and makes the slime that accumulates after
a week or so easy to hose off.
Dinghy racers, here in Annapolis, use it for regattas where they
have to keep the boats in the water for the duration - no dry
sailing. It works as advertised in the Chesapeake's primordial soup.
They also coat their spinnakers with it so they won't soak up water,
keeping them lighter. All the serious racers use it to spray their
rigs - sails slip around the mast and shrouds drastically easier.
It's the only true dry lubricant out their, so you can lube headstay
foils, mast tracks, travellers, and blocks without it picking up crud
that bleeds out of this stuff as that dull grey scunge.
Take care,
Pete
--- Inbolger@egroups.com, wmrpage@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 8/31/00 2:28:19 PM Central Daylight Time,
> richard@s... writes:
>
> << I would tend to think that copper was used because it was
available and
> relatively mallable. >>
>
> Pretty much wrong, I think, Richard. Copper was quite expensive
and used
> only because it had biocidal and corrosion resistant properties.
The cost of
> coppering the bottoms of British warships was strain on naval
budgets
> reluctantly accepted because of its anti-fouling properties. If
malleability
> and price were the criteria, lead certainly would have been used -
as it was
> on many church roofs. I don't think it was terribly effective
against ship
> worm - must have helped some, I'm sure, but I believe that teredo
larvae are
> quite small and presumably found interstices between the sheets,
torn sheets
> and the like to offer access to all that nice, tasty oak. Once
started, they
> could grow and munch their happy paths through out the timbers. I
believe
> that later in the 19th century a copper alloy called "Muntz metal"
came into
> use, perhaps because it was somewhat cheaper than "pure" copper,
but I'm not
> sure on that and can't recall a source. Copper sheets were often
thicker at
> the waterline where exposure to oxygen hastened corrosion.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, Bolger lived aboard a boat of his design with
a coppered
> bottom for a time and spoke highly of its anti-fouling properties.
If I'm not
> mistaken, he said that the higher initial cost, compared to regular
> applications of anti-fouling paint, more than paid for itself over
time in
> fewer haul-outs and the saving in paint.
>
> I seem to recall that the posting that started this thread was by
someone
> contemplating trailer-sailing a Micro. Here in the land of fresh
water, no
> one bothers about anti-fouling paint on "dry" sailed boats - and
few "wet"
> sailed one either. Is anti-fouling treatment necessary for trailer-
sailed
> boats operating in saltwater?
>
> Bill in MN
I do live in Oklahoma, but my Freedom lives in Pensacola, Fl. Anyway, the
Hobie did get quite a bit of scum that could be wiped off. My dinghy has,
more than once, develop some seed barnacles (larvae) in just 2 or 3 days -
they get hard pretty quick and are tough to scrub off. I do think it's
seasonal, but I would tend to use something on the bottom if I was going to
leave the boat in for a few days in the summer.
I'm changing to a hard dinghy and will probably put VC17 on it.
Gregg Carlson
At 09:14 PM 8/31/2000 EDT, you wrote:
Hobie did get quite a bit of scum that could be wiped off. My dinghy has,
more than once, develop some seed barnacles (larvae) in just 2 or 3 days -
they get hard pretty quick and are tough to scrub off. I do think it's
seasonal, but I would tend to use something on the bottom if I was going to
leave the boat in for a few days in the summer.
I'm changing to a hard dinghy and will probably put VC17 on it.
Gregg Carlson
At 09:14 PM 8/31/2000 EDT, you wrote:
><< I had aover a
> Hobie in the water on a mooring a couple of weeks back for a few days and
> it got pretty cruddy pretty quickly. >>
>
>Gregg - I thought you were in freshwater territory. Am I mistaken? If not,
>was the "crud" anything other than greenish scum that couldn't be wiped off
>with a sponge? It may be that biological activity is just a lot slower
>shorter season up here in the land of seasonally "hard water". Anyway, Itake
>it that you think anti-fouling treatment is necessary even on aadvice.
>trailer-sailed boat. I am aware that there are paints formulated so that
>boats can be launched after the paint has dried. I suppose I should infer
>from the existence of such products the need for them. Thanks for your
>
>Just Curious
>Bill in MN
>
>Bolger rules!!!
>- no cursing
>- stay on topic
>- use punctuation
>- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
>- add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
In a message dated 8/31/00 7:58:06 PM Central Daylight Time,
ghartc@...writes:
<< I had a
Hobie in the water on a mooring a couple of weeks back for a few days and
it got pretty cruddy pretty quickly. >>
Gregg - I thought you were in freshwater territory. Am I mistaken? If not,
was the "crud" anything other than greenish scum that couldn't be wiped off
with a sponge? It may be that biological activity is just a lot slower over a
shorter season up here in the land of seasonally "hard water". Anyway, I take
it that you think anti-fouling treatment is necessary even on a
trailer-sailed boat. I am aware that there are paints formulated so that
boats can be launched after the paint has dried. I suppose I should infer
from the existence of such products the need for them. Thanks for your advice.
Just Curious
Bill in MN
ghartc@...writes:
<< I had a
Hobie in the water on a mooring a couple of weeks back for a few days and
it got pretty cruddy pretty quickly. >>
Gregg - I thought you were in freshwater territory. Am I mistaken? If not,
was the "crud" anything other than greenish scum that couldn't be wiped off
with a sponge? It may be that biological activity is just a lot slower over a
shorter season up here in the land of seasonally "hard water". Anyway, I take
it that you think anti-fouling treatment is necessary even on a
trailer-sailed boat. I am aware that there are paints formulated so that
boats can be launched after the paint has dried. I suppose I should infer
from the existence of such products the need for them. Thanks for your advice.
Just Curious
Bill in MN
I would say it is; I get growth on my dinghy in about 3 days. I had a
Hobie in the water on a mooring a couple of weeks back for a few days and
it got pretty cruddy pretty quickly. I would expect something light and
easy like VC17 would be appropriate - though you need to check its rating
for drying out - some can some can't.
Of course, not as big deal in winter or cooler water (gulf coast).
Gregg Carlson
Hobie in the water on a mooring a couple of weeks back for a few days and
it got pretty cruddy pretty quickly. I would expect something light and
easy like VC17 would be appropriate - though you need to check its rating
for drying out - some can some can't.
Of course, not as big deal in winter or cooler water (gulf coast).
Gregg Carlson
>I seem to recall that the posting that started this thread was by someone
>contemplating trailer-sailing a Micro. Here in the land of fresh water, no
>one bothers about anti-fouling paint on "dry" sailed boats - and few "wet"
>sailed one either. Is anti-fouling treatment necessary for trailer-sailed
>boats operating in saltwater?
In a message dated 8/31/00 2:28:19 PM Central Daylight Time,
richard@...writes:
<< I would tend to think that copper was used because it was available and
relatively mallable. >>
Pretty much wrong, I think, Richard. Copper was quite expensive and used
only because it had biocidal and corrosion resistant properties. The cost of
coppering the bottoms of British warships was strain on naval budgets
reluctantly accepted because of its anti-fouling properties. If malleability
and price were the criteria, lead certainly would have been used - as it was
on many church roofs. I don't think it was terribly effective against ship
worm - must have helped some, I'm sure, but I believe that teredo larvae are
quite small and presumably found interstices between the sheets, torn sheets
and the like to offer access to all that nice, tasty oak. Once started, they
could grow and munch their happy paths through out the timbers. I believe
that later in the 19th century a copper alloy called "Muntz metal" came into
use, perhaps because it was somewhat cheaper than "pure" copper, but I'm not
sure on that and can't recall a source. Copper sheets were often thicker at
the waterline where exposure to oxygen hastened corrosion.
If I'm not mistaken, Bolger lived aboard a boat of his design with a coppered
bottom for a time and spoke highly of its anti-fouling properties. If I'm not
mistaken, he said that the higher initial cost, compared to regular
applications of anti-fouling paint, more than paid for itself over time in
fewer haul-outs and the saving in paint.
I seem to recall that the posting that started this thread was by someone
contemplating trailer-sailing a Micro. Here in the land of fresh water, no
one bothers about anti-fouling paint on "dry" sailed boats - and few "wet"
sailed one either. Is anti-fouling treatment necessary for trailer-sailed
boats operating in saltwater?
Bill in MN
richard@...writes:
<< I would tend to think that copper was used because it was available and
relatively mallable. >>
Pretty much wrong, I think, Richard. Copper was quite expensive and used
only because it had biocidal and corrosion resistant properties. The cost of
coppering the bottoms of British warships was strain on naval budgets
reluctantly accepted because of its anti-fouling properties. If malleability
and price were the criteria, lead certainly would have been used - as it was
on many church roofs. I don't think it was terribly effective against ship
worm - must have helped some, I'm sure, but I believe that teredo larvae are
quite small and presumably found interstices between the sheets, torn sheets
and the like to offer access to all that nice, tasty oak. Once started, they
could grow and munch their happy paths through out the timbers. I believe
that later in the 19th century a copper alloy called "Muntz metal" came into
use, perhaps because it was somewhat cheaper than "pure" copper, but I'm not
sure on that and can't recall a source. Copper sheets were often thicker at
the waterline where exposure to oxygen hastened corrosion.
If I'm not mistaken, Bolger lived aboard a boat of his design with a coppered
bottom for a time and spoke highly of its anti-fouling properties. If I'm not
mistaken, he said that the higher initial cost, compared to regular
applications of anti-fouling paint, more than paid for itself over time in
fewer haul-outs and the saving in paint.
I seem to recall that the posting that started this thread was by someone
contemplating trailer-sailing a Micro. Here in the land of fresh water, no
one bothers about anti-fouling paint on "dry" sailed boats - and few "wet"
sailed one either. Is anti-fouling treatment necessary for trailer-sailed
boats operating in saltwater?
Bill in MN
I believe as early as the Greeks ships were clad, usually in lead.
Gregg Carlson
At 02:21 PM 8/31/2000 -0500, you wrote:
Gregg Carlson
At 02:21 PM 8/31/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>I would tend to think that copper was used because it was available and
>relatively mallable. I.E., easy to match the curve of the bottom of the
>boat.
>
>Also, I imagine it was the "hard to chew through" factor that kept the
>marine critters out of the wood.
>
>A pretty good modern substitue would be a layer of glass cloth and epoxy....
>
>> Daniel,
>> It seems a little doubtful that copper would do much to stop a heavy cast
>iron ball
>> that was coming with enough force to smash planking inches thick and
>frames feet
>> thick. As far as the literature indicates, the copper's purpose was to
>keep the
>> marine critters off and out of the vessel. I don't suppose that it had to
>form a
>> completely watertight layer, but it also served to protect and conserve
>the
>> watertight seams with their pitch and caulking.
>>
>
>
>Bolger rules!!!
>- no cursing
>- stay on topic
>- use punctuation
>- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
>- add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>
>
I would tend to think that copper was used because it was available and
relatively mallable. I.E., easy to match the curve of the bottom of the
boat.
Also, I imagine it was the "hard to chew through" factor that kept the
marine critters out of the wood.
A pretty good modern substitue would be a layer of glass cloth and epoxy....
relatively mallable. I.E., easy to match the curve of the bottom of the
boat.
Also, I imagine it was the "hard to chew through" factor that kept the
marine critters out of the wood.
A pretty good modern substitue would be a layer of glass cloth and epoxy....
> Daniel,iron ball
> It seems a little doubtful that copper would do much to stop a heavy cast
> that was coming with enough force to smash planking inches thick andframes feet
> thick. As far as the literature indicates, the copper's purpose was tokeep the
> marine critters off and out of the vessel. I don't suppose that it had toform a
> completely watertight layer, but it also served to protect and conservethe
> watertight seams with their pitch and caulking.
>
Daniel,
It seems a little doubtful that copper would do much to stop a heavy cast iron ball
that was coming with enough force to smash planking inches thick and frames feet
thick. As far as the literature indicates, the copper's purpose was to keep the
marine critters off and out of the vessel. I don't suppose that it had to form a
completely watertight layer, but it also served to protect and conserve the
watertight seams with their pitch and caulking.
I seem to recall that the practice of coppering ships bottoms is not, in fact, an
ancient one. The mariners search for something to keep the shipworms out and the
bottom clean has been chronicled from quite ancient times. Spreading tallow all over
the hull, coating hulls with tar, grease, etc. But it appears that the modern navies
of the seventeenth century, or perhaps the eighteenth, began the use of copper. The
practice was then slowly picked up by wealthy ship owners. In the nineteenth
century, for example, all Clipper ships were coppered. Narratives of earlier voyages
commonly refer to the growth of fouling on the ships. There are stories of finding a
secluded harbor to careen the ship and clean her off.
I would think that if a simple way were found to attach a thin layer of copper to a
boat's bottom, it might be a very economical way to avoid the danger of worms and
the expense of haulouts to clean and paint the bottom.
Jim Pope
daniel.curnutte@...wrote:
It seems a little doubtful that copper would do much to stop a heavy cast iron ball
that was coming with enough force to smash planking inches thick and frames feet
thick. As far as the literature indicates, the copper's purpose was to keep the
marine critters off and out of the vessel. I don't suppose that it had to form a
completely watertight layer, but it also served to protect and conserve the
watertight seams with their pitch and caulking.
I seem to recall that the practice of coppering ships bottoms is not, in fact, an
ancient one. The mariners search for something to keep the shipworms out and the
bottom clean has been chronicled from quite ancient times. Spreading tallow all over
the hull, coating hulls with tar, grease, etc. But it appears that the modern navies
of the seventeenth century, or perhaps the eighteenth, began the use of copper. The
practice was then slowly picked up by wealthy ship owners. In the nineteenth
century, for example, all Clipper ships were coppered. Narratives of earlier voyages
commonly refer to the growth of fouling on the ships. There are stories of finding a
secluded harbor to careen the ship and clean her off.
I would think that if a simple way were found to attach a thin layer of copper to a
boat's bottom, it might be a very economical way to avoid the danger of worms and
the expense of haulouts to clean and paint the bottom.
Jim Pope
daniel.curnutte@...wrote:
>
>
> I think the cannon balls trying to bore their way through the hull would have
> probably been a greater consideration.
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing
> - stay on topic
> - use punctuation
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
The reason copper was used ( and still is ) is that it is a poison to sea
life not as a phyiscal barrier but a chemical barrier so to speak. Currently
copper is the only legal biocide allowed in most anti fouling paint ( tin
had eclipised copper but as it is very nasty has been outlawed for almost
all yachting and small boat purposes).
A good rule of thumb as far as choosing anti fouling is the more copper the
better.
We had an electronic anti fouling system which worked very well on Loose
Moose 2 which never had chemical anti fouling the entire time we had her.
Bob & Sheila
Paradise Connections
St Thomas USVI
http://www.paradiseconnections.com
life not as a phyiscal barrier but a chemical barrier so to speak. Currently
copper is the only legal biocide allowed in most anti fouling paint ( tin
had eclipised copper but as it is very nasty has been outlawed for almost
all yachting and small boat purposes).
A good rule of thumb as far as choosing anti fouling is the more copper the
better.
We had an electronic anti fouling system which worked very well on Loose
Moose 2 which never had chemical anti fouling the entire time we had her.
Bob & Sheila
Paradise Connections
St Thomas USVI
http://www.paradiseconnections.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Spelling <richard@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Copper bottom treatment?
>
> I would tend to think that copper was used because it was available and
> relatively mallable. I.E., easy to match the curve of the bottom of the
> boat.
>
> Also, I imagine it was the "hard to chew through" factor that kept the
> marine critters out of the wood.
>
> A pretty good modern substitue would be a layer of glass cloth and
epoxy....
>
> > Daniel,
> > It seems a little doubtful that copper would do much to stop a heavy
cast
> iron ball
> > that was coming with enough force to smash planking inches thick and
> frames feet
> > thick. As far as the literature indicates, the copper's purpose was to
> keep the
> > marine critters off and out of the vessel. I don't suppose that it had
to
> form a
> > completely watertight layer, but it also served to protect and conserve
> the
> > watertight seams with their pitch and caulking.
> >
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing
> - stay on topic
> - use punctuation
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>
>
"I think the copper was nailed on to keep out worms which bored into the hull. "
I think the cannon balls trying to bore their way through the hull would have
probably been a greater consideration.
I think the cannon balls trying to bore their way through the hull would have
probably been a greater consideration.
I think the copper was nailed on to keep out worms which bored into the hull. I have
read that these are a problem in the Chesapeake Bay now because of higher salinity.
Clyde PS it was a while before I realized that the copper didn't have to be water
tight.
daniel.curnutte@...wrote:
read that these are a problem in the Chesapeake Bay now because of higher salinity.
Clyde PS it was a while before I realized that the copper didn't have to be water
tight.
daniel.curnutte@...wrote:
>
> In days of old the sailing warships had a thin copper plate nailed to their
> wooden hulls. This was done to make them "slippery" and prevent growth on the
> hulls. So I imagine this copper powder idea would probably do the same thing.
> Alternatively would it be equally good to put thin copper plating on the hull of
> a Micro?? Could you glue it on?? Or would it have to be nailed??
> How much would that weigh??
> Daniel
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing
> - stay on topic
> - use punctuation
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
Daniel,
This is an interesting thought, and one that PCB could give you some good
information on. His own live aboard home/office, Resolution, has a coppered bottom.
She lay for years in a tidal inlet in Gloucester which grew beards on other craft,
mine included, with no growth on her at all.
I've been wondering recently if this might be the application that 3M 5200 is ideal
for. Its flexibility might make it just the ideal adhesive for copper sheeting
applied to a boat's bottom. The copper would undergo thermal expansion and
contraction at rates very different that of the boat's wooden bottom and the 3M goo
might allow for it. I think that it is sticky enough to hold onto both the copper
and the wood or epoxy coated boat bottom. In the good old days, of course, they used
tar.(and nails, lots of)
With respect to copper powder and epoxy as a bottom coating, it has been done. But
it has been done as a racing sailboat improvement. You put it on and then polish it,
and then looking at your reflection in your boat's bottom, you wipe of the beads of
sweat you can see on your face in the super shiny surface and believe, truly
believe, that your boat is now faster than all the rest. The product, whose name I
have forgotten, has, however, not swept the market.
Jim
daniel.curnutte@...wrote:
This is an interesting thought, and one that PCB could give you some good
information on. His own live aboard home/office, Resolution, has a coppered bottom.
She lay for years in a tidal inlet in Gloucester which grew beards on other craft,
mine included, with no growth on her at all.
I've been wondering recently if this might be the application that 3M 5200 is ideal
for. Its flexibility might make it just the ideal adhesive for copper sheeting
applied to a boat's bottom. The copper would undergo thermal expansion and
contraction at rates very different that of the boat's wooden bottom and the 3M goo
might allow for it. I think that it is sticky enough to hold onto both the copper
and the wood or epoxy coated boat bottom. In the good old days, of course, they used
tar.(and nails, lots of)
With respect to copper powder and epoxy as a bottom coating, it has been done. But
it has been done as a racing sailboat improvement. You put it on and then polish it,
and then looking at your reflection in your boat's bottom, you wipe of the beads of
sweat you can see on your face in the super shiny surface and believe, truly
believe, that your boat is now faster than all the rest. The product, whose name I
have forgotten, has, however, not swept the market.
Jim
daniel.curnutte@...wrote:
>
> In days of old the sailing warships had a thin copper plate nailed to their
> wooden hulls.
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing
> - stay on topic
> - use punctuation
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
In days of old the sailing warships had a thin copper plate nailed to their
wooden hulls. This was done to make them "slippery" and prevent growth on the
hulls. So I imagine this copper powder idea would probably do the same thing.
Alternatively would it be equally good to put thin copper plating on the hull of
a Micro?? Could you glue it on?? Or would it have to be nailed??
How much would that weigh??
Daniel
wooden hulls. This was done to make them "slippery" and prevent growth on the
hulls. So I imagine this copper powder idea would probably do the same thing.
Alternatively would it be equally good to put thin copper plating on the hull of
a Micro?? Could you glue it on?? Or would it have to be nailed??
How much would that weigh??
Daniel