New Experimental Graphene Anti Foul

[Don SSDD]

A Canadian company has applied its new coating to local lobster boats, resulting in a 20% reduction in fuel consumption and a reduction in underwater noise from less growth on hulls (and I assume a smoother surface). The coating is also being used on underwater netting in fish farms.

They are now moving to larger vessels. To see how this develops will be of interest. The application process is unknown to me.

https://www.grapheneenterprise.ca/

[Jefecinco]

I believe there have been past attempts to produce biocide free bottom paints that depend upon an extremely slick bottom to keep marine growth from attaching itself to underwater surfaces. They enjoyed some success but recreational boats were not well suited to the products. I suspect the Graphene product will fare better.

[jimh]

Reducing hull drag due to water adhesion to the hull surface is probably more useful in boats that are not planing hulls and have a low power-to-weight ratio. For example, when the America's Cup racing sailboats were still displacement hull boats with limited sail area, some competitors used special laminate films on the hull to reduce drag. That was expensive, and and the improvement in boat speed might have been 0.05-MPH. In a sailboat race of three hours duration, the cumulative advantage of 0.05-MPH more speed is 0.15-miles or 790-feet. In highly competitive sailboat racing a margin of victory of 790-feet (or in the case of America's Cup displacement hull boats about 12 boat lengths) would be considered a very significant win over a competitor. On the other hand, if two planing hull Boston Whaler boats compete for three hours at full-throttle racing at 50-MPH a victory by 910-feet over 150-miles feet is more like a neck-and-neck finish.

Right now the major source of drag on high-speed planing hull boats is the propeller and the underwater gear being dragged through the water. Also, the majority of the Boston Whaler boats are under 25-feet in length and are not kept in the water, they don't need anti-fouling paint, and they live on a trailer. For the minority of Boston Whaler boats that need anti-fouling paint because they are kept in the water, the principal goal is to stop marine growth, not make the boat go faster.

Small incremental improvements in hull efficiency and propulsion efficiency are most attractive to people who own boats that consume enormous amounts of fuel. If your boat burns a million gallons a year, a drag reducing bottom paint might be very attractive. If your boat burns 100-gallons of fuel a year, the return on investment for a fancy bottom paint may be negative.

[dtmackey]

Over the past 30 years there has been many highly touted breakthrough anti fouling ideas and products and we are still using the same copper or tin based paints with some minor tweaks to formulation. Anyone remember the cayenne fad when people dumping that into bottom paint?

If a paint was truly revolutionary it would sweep the market by storm, but that hasn't happen yet and there might be some advantages to graphene, but it's not a new material and I'm sure it's been tried before.

Personally my favorite bottom paint was mercury based and it was superior to the best paints of today, but as we all know the use of mercury based anti fouling paints was outlawed by the EPA.

This spring I'm wet media blasting my Nordic Tug bottom to remove 21 years of ablative Micron paint and have been looking for something better, since I'm starting fresh, but it looks like I'll be using the same paint as there's nothing better in my area.

D-

[Jefecinco]

I've had good performance from water-based ablative anti-fouling paint in the very warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Both West Marine and Interlux offered this type paint in very similar formulas. I applied three coats, with the first coat in a contrasting color to show when paint needed to be reapplied or touched up.