Rutland Stove Polish ......Breaking News!

[John R.]

From the horses mouth..... Rutland's chemist says the following regarding their products:

The stove polish #72 & 73 is an original Rutland formulation comprised of emulsified waxes, carbon black and graphite.

The stove polish SP8 is not an original Rutland formula. It was originally developed by Williams and was taken over by Rutland and marketed under the Williams brand and also the Rutland Chimney Sweep brand. Both of those products are identical. The SP8 polish is different from the 72 & 73 because it is made up from a resin (they would not divulge the resin type) and carbon black and graphite.

The 72 & 73 is claimed by their chemist to penetrate deeper into iron.

The 72 or 73 is different from the SP8, because of the wax vs resin base. That leaves the big question...........Which one would work the best on a prop submerged and rotating. Cap Stump has told us what he has experienced using the 72 or 73 (difference is only the container size). Perhaps the SP8 would work as well if not better, it may hold up better to friction from the water rushing past the prop then the wax based 72 since wax is vulnerable to heat, maybe friction or cavitation can do it in quicker than the resin based SP8 cutting short its effectiveness or lifespan.

Since I already purchased the SP8 I'm going to use it on a used prop and see what happens. I will not install it on the boat however so it will not be subject to friction or cavitation. I will only be testing the antifouling capabilities of it.

If anyone is in the Ft. Myers Florida area and would like to try the SP8 on their *functional* prop let me know. If you are willing to test it I'm willing to supply it.

Anybody know what an emulsified wax is?

[D. Stump, Hanalei]

John,

The carbon black and graphite I believe is what is making this work, don't know what change in effect the difference in vehicle would make, but I would be interested in the results of your experiment. But, John, functional may have a LOT to do with how clean a prop stays. I mean, stick a metal pole in the water off your dock, in a short period of time, it will be growing critters. They look at it as "Oh, Boy! A new condominium complex", and they start to build. Now, drag same pole through the water fast enough and NOTHIN' will grow on it! The graphite and carbon may just make the prop slippery enough that the critters can't get a good grip on it and whooos, they're gone when you power out of your slip. IMHO.....

Dave Stump
the Stove Black Guy!!!!

Oh, the ONLY stove black I have ever used is #73, even on an actual woodstove! ! !

[John R]

John,

The carbon black and graphite I believe is what is making this work, don't know what change in effect the difference in vehicle would make, but I would be interested in the results of your experiment. But, John, functional may have a LOT to do with how clean a prop stays. I mean, stick a metal pole in the water off your dock, in a short period of time, it will be growing critters. They look at it as "Oh, Boy! A new condominium complex", and they start to build. Now, drag same pole through the water fast enough and NOTHIN' will grow on it! The graphite and carbon may just make the prop slippery enough that the critters can't get a good grip on it and whooos, they're gone when you power out of your slip. IMHO.....

Dave Stump
the Stove Black Guy!!!!

Oh, the ONLY stove black I have ever used is #73, even on an actual woodstove! ! !

Dave,

"Functional" (motion) may have some influence obviously but since I have been giving this more thought after speaking with the Rutland chemist I have a strong hunch that the graphite suspended in the wax is the main key to the low fouling you have noted. You use the pole analogy and that is true to a certain degree but not to a great degree. For example, you can tow a dinghy behind your boat and not have any antifouling on its bottom and it won't be long before fouling takes place, dinghy moving or still it still fouls. If motion were the major player then current alone would reduce fouling but in fact just the opposite occurs, the more current the more fouling because the water carries a greater concentration of marine life than still water. At least that is the case down here in Florida where a boat moored or docked in a backwater area that has rather still water does not foul nearly as much as a boat that is moored or docked in a pass or other high water turn over area.

There is another aspect to the "functional" condition and that is because a prop may be turning it may be rendering the stove polish to become somewhat ablative, continually exposing a refreshened surface by slowing eroding the polish exposing a new slippery surface of the wax and graphite. The potential of that effect can be determined by simply submerging a "still" prop in the water without typical periods of rotation as would be the case when running an engine. If it doesn't foul like the "functional" prop then we know the rotation is not a major contributor and the wax/graphite is a big factor. If the submerged non funtional prop does foul worse then we know the rotation/wax/graphite combo is the key.

I am going to order a bottle of the Rutland 73 as well and run a test using both the 73 and SP8 on the same prop and see what happens.

I have a feeling the resin carrier in the SP8 is going to be problematic but we will see. I don't think carbon black is contributing much if anything to the antifouling capabilities, wax and graphite are the main factors I believe. The only way I can see the carbon black as a contributor is if it has poisonous properties similar to the effects of copper.

[Ken Coit]

John,

If all your scientific research ends up proving anything, I suggest that you submit an article to Practical Sailor / ?? and see how many boat dollars you can get for it.

Seems to me that you have a chance at a big scoop.


Keep on sailing,

Ken Coit
CD/36 Parfait
Hailing Port: Raleigh, NC
Sailing from: Beaufort, NC
(Actually, she is berthed somewhere in Carteret County, NC near ICW MP 200, and not in Beaufort at all. Don't forget to add that state designation to your yacht's transom before you head out past the CG patrol.)

John,

The carbon black and graphite I believe is what is making this work, don't know what change in effect the difference in vehicle would make, but I would be interested in the results of your experiment. But, John, functional may have a LOT to do with how clean a prop stays. I mean, stick a metal pole in the water off your dock, in a short period of time, it will be growing critters. They look at it as "Oh, Boy! A new condominium complex", and they start to build. Now, drag same pole through the water fast enough and NOTHIN' will grow on it! The graphite and carbon may just make the prop slippery enough that the critters can't get a good grip on it and whooos, they're gone when you power out of your slip. IMHO.....

Dave Stump
the Stove Black Guy!!!!

Oh, the ONLY stove black I have ever used is #73, even on an actual woodstove! ! !

Dave,

"Functional" (motion) may have some influence obviously but since I have been giving this more thought after speaking with the Rutland chemist I have a strong hunch that the graphite suspended in the wax is the main key to the low fouling you have noted. You use the pole analogy and that is true to a certain degree but not to a great degree. For example, you can tow a dinghy behind your boat and not have any antifouling on its bottom and it won't be long before fouling takes place, dinghy moving or still it still fouls. If motion were the major player then current alone would reduce fouling but in fact just the opposite occurs, the more current the more fouling because the water carries a greater concentration of marine life than still water. At least that is the case down here in Florida where a boat moored or docked in a backwater area that has rather still water does not foul nearly as much as a boat that is moored or docked in a pass or other high water turn over area.

There is another aspect to the "functional" condition and that is because a prop may be turning it may be rendering the stove polish to become somewhat ablative, continually exposing a refreshened surface by slowing eroding the polish exposing a new slippery surface of the wax and graphite. The potential of that effect can be determined by simply submerging a "still" prop in the water without typical periods of rotation as would be the case when running an engine. If it doesn't foul like the "functional" prop then we know the rotation is not a major contributor and the wax/graphite is a big factor. If the submerged non funtional prop does foul worse then we know the rotation/wax/graphite combo is the key.

I am going to order a bottle of the Rutland 73 as well and run a test using both the 73 and SP8 on the same prop and see what happens.

I have a feeling the resin carrier in the SP8 is going to be problematic but we will see. I don't think carbon black is contributing much if anything to the antifouling capabilities, wax and graphite are the main factors I believe. The only way I can see the carbon black as a contributor is if it has poisonous properties similar to the effects of copper.

parfaitNOSPAM@nc.rr.com

[Don Sargeant]

John,

I have already done your experiment -- by not using the engine much last summer. I can assure you that just putting the prop in the water will net nothing but a seafood dinner. You'll only have to cook the prop with a little garlic to make a nice soup. Have some crusty bread and a little Perrier along with it.

MOTION is the key to making stoveblack work as an antifoulant.

Don Sargeant
~~COQUINA~~

[John R.]

John,

I have already done your experiment -- by not using the engine much last summer. I can assure you that just putting the prop in the water will net nothing but a seafood dinner. You'll only have to cook the prop with a little garlic to make a nice soup. Have some crusty bread and a little Perrier along with it.

MOTION is the key to making stoveblack work as an antifoulant.

Don Sargeant
~~COQUINA~~

Hmmmmmmm Don, this news makes stove polish not sound like such an attractive alternative to paint. I imagine Veridian as expensive as it is will probably keep paint rated as the best performer based on your remarks. When I think that most boats just sit still in the slip or on a mooring the stove polish just seems senseless if you say it doesn't work without motion.

Since I already have the one bottle of polish and ordered the other I may go ahead anyway with the test and see what happens just out of curiosity. Thanks for your remarks.