SPC Technology: What can we learn from the pioneers? Colin ... Anderson.pdf · 4th July 1922:...

SPC Technology:

What can we learn from the pioneers?

Colin Anderson

1

Scottish Inventors named Alexander (Alex)

• Flush Toilet Alexander Cumming (1775)

• Electric Clock Alexander Bain (1840)

• Hypodermic syringe Alexander Wood (1851)

• ECG Alexander Muirhead (1869)

• Telephone Alexander Graham Bell (1876)

• Penicillin Alexander Fleming (1928)

and ….

• SPC Alex Milne (1974)

2

The concept of “dissolving antifoulings” was not new: 1922

4th July 1922: George D Coleman (deceased), Buffalo, NY

US Patent 1,421,914A “Antifouling Compostion”

“Since the hydraulic cement is of a somewhat porous and hydroscopic

character, the action of the sea-water is not limited to the surface of the cement,

but the water may penetrate more or less into the body of the cement, thereby

coming into contact with the copper embedded therein. The solution and

removal of the copper at or near the surface of the cement, by increasing the

porosity of the coating at this point, tends to promote flaking or erosion of the

surface.”

3

25th December 1951: Antonio S. Pitre (US Navy) & John Rudolph Saroyan, Vallejo

US Patent 2,579,610 “Surface Protecting Materials and Methods of making the

same”

“An object of the invention is to provide an antifouling coating:

• Which erodes away by dissolving and/or disintegrating under the frictional

attack of relatively moving water … whereby a continuously toxic surface is

exposed;

• The erosion and surface leaching rates are so related that a fully toxic surface is

constantly exposed but the coating is not, in general, worn away more rapidly

than is necessary to maintain the toxicity;

• A continuously toxic coating which has a minimum erosion life of three to five

years and one which erodes at less than a rate of one quarter of a millimeter per

year.”

The concept of “dissolving antifoulings” was not new: 1951

4

Historical Timeline for use of Tin in Antifoulings

1700 1800 1900 2000

Early 1960’s: Organo-arsenic and Mercury compounds had to be

abandoned for practical and environmental reasons, and there

were dramatic changes in ship sizes and shipbuilding practices:

this provided a catalyst for change. Organotins appeared.

1728: A new method of sheathing and preserving the planks of ships

consisting of “rooled” copper, brass, tin, iron or tinned plates

1860: After the corrosion of the iron-hulled “HMS

Triton”, tin was trialled as an experimental a/f less

likely to induce corrosion than copper

5

1960 19801970

1967: The first TBT copolymer antifouling was launched, a white

Yacht antifouling. This was considered novel because the biocide

compound was a liquid polymer, not a solid pigment

1974: First product labelled “SPC” (SPC-1):

• Actives were the TBT copolymer and DDT

• Zinc Oxide was the main pigment

• It was Copper-free

1963: M&T US Patent 3,167,473

“Compositions containing

biologically active polymers of

organotin and ester

compounds”

6

Historical Timeline for use of TBT in Antifoulings

Lesson 1: Company Mergers and Acquisitions were critical

• In the first half of the 20th century there was a London-based company

called PINCHIN JOHNSON, who were major suppliers of paints and

coatings to industry and consumers.

• This company grew by buying up competitors, and one of the companies

they bought was a Yorkshire-based competitor, RED HAND MARINE

COATINGS.

• Then in 1960 the UK textile company COURTAULDS wanted to diversify

and they in turn bought Pinchin Johnson.

• Courtaulds then bought Pinchin Johnson’s competitor INTERNATIONAL

PAINT in 1968, and merged it with Red Hand.

• This bought together 2 keys players in the SPC story.

SPC: How did it happen?

7

Courtaulds

International Paint

George Hails

Red Hand

Alex Milne


8

• Prior to this, Red Hand and IP were fierce competitors:

– Red Hand had a product called “Wide Spectrum” that they were trying

to make last longer and longer, using the pigment TBTF as a booster to

Cuprous Oxide.

– International were trying to make a product to compete, based on TBT

copolymers, but could not make it last long enough. After 6 months on

a ship, all the paint had disappeared!

• It was Alex Milne who turned this problem on its head, and introduced the

concept that wearing away could actually be beneficial, leading to

smoother hulls. It was George Hails who then carried out the extensive

paint development and testing to learn how to control it.

• Their work was patented in May 1977, having originally been filed in

March 1975.


9

Lesson 2: Competition provided the impetus

• In the early 1970’s there were three main technology options being

investigated for fouling control on ships:

– Hydrophilic (“Hydrated”) membranes

– Organotin polymers

– Non-stick surfaces

• Hydrophilic membranes (based on a US Patent) were viewed as a means of

putting a “dolphin skin” on a ship, thereby reducing the drag and controlling

the leaching of biocides from the underlying traditional antifouling.


10

Lesson 2: Competition provided the impetus

• The patent rights to hydrophilic membrane technology were available for

purchase, and it was Hempels who ended up buying them. Soon they were

marketing a product called “Hydron”, and claiming antifouling technical

leadership.

• Within International Paint, questions were being asked as to whether they

had made a mistake in not buying the patent rights to this technology. They

had a “me-too” product, but did not believe that it worked – although in the

market place this was hard to prove.

• In order to compete with Hempels, the IP directors decided to take the risk of

launching the organotin polymer technology. This had been in the Yacht

market for some time, but was totally unproven on commercial shipping.


11

Lesson 3: Success involved taking a calculated risk

• This decision was based on:

- The fact that TBT was scientifically elegant, rather than being “magic art”

- There appeared to be potential to develop the technology further


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

70/30 65/35 60/40 55/45 50/50

Re

lati

ve

Po

lis

hin

g R

ate

TBTM/MMA weight ratio

12


• This decision was based on:

- The fact that TBT was scientifically elegant, rather than being “magic art”

- There appeared to be potential to develop the technology further


50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

230

250

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

70/30 65/35 60/40 55/45 50/50

Ac

id V

alu

e

Re

lati

ve

Po

lis

hin

g R

ate

TBTM/MMA weight ratio

13


• It was a big risk: only a few small test patches, and 1 full ship application, had

been carried out prior to the launch. On static raft tests the product failed

after 3 months, and there was very limited performance data.

• Launching a product with such limited testing now would be very unlikely to

happen, given that the cost of failure has become increasingly large.

• But, “NO RISK => NO PROFIT”

“Whenever you see a successful business, someone once made a courageous

decision.” -- Peter Drucker


14


• The two “technological discontinuity” innovations in antifoulings in recent

times (SPC and Foul Release) have both used niche markets to minimise the

risk.

– SPC

i. Yacht market (1968)

– Foul Release

i. Japanese Power stations

ii. Small Aluminium vessels (eg US Coastguard, 1989 ff)

iii. Fast craft (eg High speed catamarans, 1996 ff)

• This would suggest that the next “technological discontinuity” will come via

a niche market.

• Keep a good look out!


15

Lesson 4: A key customer and academia were crucial

• In 1962, a Cambridge professor, Christopher Grigson, married the daughter of a

Norwegian ship owner, Jørgen Bang.

• In 1968 Grigson moved to Norway, to work at his father-in-laws’ firm, and he

soon developed a keen interest in the measurement of ship performance.

• At the same time, a group at Newcastle University was developing an interest in

measuring ship performance, under Professor Robert (“Bob”) Townsin.


16

Lesson 4: A key customer and academia were crucial

• “Athene”, a ship managed by Grigson, was the first full ship application of SPC.

• After a few months, a dive inspection showed that the mid-ships un-coated

control area was totally fouled, whereas the rest of the ship was clean.

• From then on the technology thrived, primarily through the partnership of

Innovative Customer + Academia + Industry.


17

Lesson 5: Right time, Right place

• In October 1973 OPEC (Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries)

proclaimed an oil embargo. The embargo was targeted at nations perceived

as supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

• By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen from $3

per barrel to nearly $12 globally; US prices were significantly higher.


18

• Rotor tests with different surfaces, showing Drag vs Roughness:

The SPC Marketing Platform - 1974

19


20

• Simulated flow of turbulent water over a roughly profiled water soluble resin:


• Sharp peaks disappear first, eventually leading to an almost level surface.

21

Smoothing over an anticorrosive

overspray particle


22

• No compromise on surface tolerance was allowed. This made the product 3x

more expensive per sq.m. than traditional antifoulings, and 6x more expensive

if blasting costs were included. Ships were even turned down if deemed to not

be good enough in the drydock.

• Vessel operational speed had to be > 12 knots.

• A dedicated SPC Technical Service team was deployed, so that there was full-

time support for every ship application.

• An SPC Product Manager (Steve Patterson) was appointed in 1974.

SPC: Why was it successful?

23

• Improved performance (1): Copper was included: CuSCN (1976), Cu2O (1979)

• Longer lasting with lower thickness: Slower Polishing (1979)

• Fewer coats: High solids (1983)

• Surface Tolerant: A version with a new Brand Name was launched, with full

blasting longer necessary

• Improved performance (2) : Anti-slime Zineb – “Sigmaplane”

• Reduced TBT and Cu levels: “How low can you go?” Dr Kaznoff, Navsea

SPC: What happened next?

24

1. “Short-term considerations are the most powerful inhibitors of successful

R&D. The development of SPC suggests a 10-year time-scale at least for a

major breakthrough.

2. Only the most trivial developments can be flow-charted; the end-product of a

piece of research may be dramatically different from its perceived starting

point.

3. R & D cannot be isolated from the commercial pressures of the market place.

The commercial or marketing departments should be educated in the fact

that science is not magic in a white coat; we do not write the laws of physics

and chemistry, there are strict limits to the possible.

Conclusions (by Alex Milne)

25

4. There is an inverse relationship between success-rate and value. A piece of

research with a 100% success rate guaranteed is probably not worth doing.

A radically new departure may have only a 5% chance of success.

5. There is not a great deal in the foregoing to sustain the belief that if you can

do it once (ie make a radical advance in a chosen field) you can do it again.

6. Advances rarely take place in the abstract; the challenge is for the company

to design a career structure for its best chemists and physicists in which

they are equally at home at the bench, or in the dry-dock, or in the committee

room.


26

7. If only one in ten projects are viable, the itch of management is to uproot the

nine at an early stage in the interests of efficiency; most knowledge is,

however, negative knowledge, and timing and judgment are vitally

important; a scalpel rather than an axe is indicated”

ALEX MILNE

11th February, 1981


27

“Cultivation of Innovation”: Chemtech, April 1989

“While management demands consensus, control, certainty, and the

status quo, creativity thrives on the opposite … instinct, uncertainty,

freedom and iconoclasm”.

“The goal is to create an environment where fear of failure is no

longer a threat and risk taking is enjoyed and sought”.

28

2

9The next perfect wave?

29

SPC Technology: What can we learn from the pioneers? Colin ... Anderson.pdf · 4th July 1922:...

Documents

Transcript of SPC Technology: What can we learn from the pioneers? Colin ... Anderson.pdf · 4th July 1922:...