Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: CPES and S1

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    472

    Default CPES and S1

    Reading the thread on Dealing with Dry Rot made me wonder about System 3's S1 and how it differs from CPES. I've used S1 but never for rot. I'm currently digging out rot in cabin corners and am wondering if my leftover S1 would penetrate and seal the wood once the rot is removed. Is this similar to CPES annd if not, why not? Any comments from folks who have used both would be appreciated.

    Jamie

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    2,119

    Default Re: CPES and S1

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamie Orr View Post
    Reading the thread on Dealing with Dry Rot made me wonder about System 3's S1 and how it differs from CPES. I've used S1 but never for rot. I'm currently digging out rot in cabin corners and am wondering if my leftover S1 would penetrate and seal the wood once the rot is removed. Is this similar to CPES annd if not, why not? Any comments from folks who have used both would be appreciated.

    Jamie
    Jamie this has been done to death: epoxy seals from the outside there is no need for it to penetrate and if so then you really need to repair the timber properly. CPES is old thinking that wont die out due to the same reasons we have homeopathics. Use warmed 100% solids to seal your wood, cpes is for people who cant be bothered doing it right but if you insist make your own, after all its just a brew of 70% cheap solvent! No matter which way you slice and dice it, thats all it is- thinned epoxy.
    whatever rocks your boat

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lindstrom, MN
    Posts
    1,920

    Default Re: CPES and S1

    AS a CPES skeptic, I would say that one will probably work as well as the other if you get enough rot out. Depending on the likelihood of collateral damage, I would recommend using a pressure washer to find and destroy the punky stuff. Those things are moderately selective destroyers of soft wood. In the wrong place, the mess could be a disaster.

    The S3's S1 has about 50% solids, CPES has a lot less and will not say how much they do have. At 600 g/l VOC, CPES is pretty thin soup. It does seem to have its benefits as a primer and stabilizer of aged, but not severely deteriorated surfaces. It won't stop fir plywood from checking, but neither will anything else.

    You will never find a definitive answer that this forum will agree with. http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...etrating-epoxy 154 posts and finally degenerated into some guys reminiscing about Indonesia.

    If you know what is good for you, you avoid arguing politics, religion, the best anchor, penetrating epoxy and amine blus in polite company.
    Management is the art of counting beans. Leadership is the art of making every being count. --Joe Finch

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Deer Isle, Maine
    Posts
    1,426

    Default Re: CPES and S1

    Yea, "penetrating epoxy" is a lively topic.
    I am in agreement with, though maybe not as adamant as, the views expressed in posts #2 and #3 !
    Replace rotted wood with non rotted stuff.
    At least in my humble opinion>

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Hyannis, MA, USA
    Posts
    43,968

    Default Re: CPES and S1

    As a CPES fan, I see no reason not to use your S1 up. Even if it's not a thin penetrating and does not use as toxic solvents, it'll likely do the job ok.

    The remark that CPES won't prevent checking is not born out in my experience. I know of two Glouster Gulls built side by side here in the mid '80s, both to very good standards with proper marine ply. One got conventional priming and painting. The other was CPES'd and then painted with exterior waterbase paint. Both boats lived on the beach year round. Both got a light sanding and painting annually or biannually. It took 2 years for the conventionally treated boat to start checking. When last I saw here, maybe five years ago, the CPES'd boat had no checking.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    San Francisco Bay
    Posts
    11,468

    Default Re: CPES and S1

    Quote Originally Posted by jackster View Post
    Yea, "penetrating epoxy" is a lively topic.
    I am in agreement with, though maybe not as adamant as, the views expressed in posts #2 and #3 !
    Replace rotted wood with non rotted stuff.
    At least in my humble opinion>
    I'm a CPES fan, but only as a sealer. It doesn't "restore rotten wood" like "The Rot Doctor" or "Restors-it" claim. Like cancer, removing and replacing fungus infected wood is the only proper way to deal with rot on a boat, or anywhere else. And be sure to leave wide margins. That said, people who believe "it's just thinned epoxy" really aren't informed about the product either. You can thin epoxy adhesive and perhaps accomplish close to the same results, but it's not the same stuff.

    However, given the change in the social climate of late, henceforth, further discussions around the office water cooler about penetrating epoxy will result in immediate termination.




    "EPOXIE" -- WB Magazine's Miss December
    Last edited by Bob Cleek; 12-16-2017 at 05:31 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Shoreline, Washington
    Posts
    2,270

    Default Re: CPES and S1

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamie Orr View Post
    Reading the thread on Dealing with Dry Rot made me wonder about System 3's S1 and how it differs from CPES. I've used S1 but never for rot. I'm currently digging out rot in cabin corners and am wondering if my leftover S1 would penetrate and seal the wood once the rot is removed. Is this similar to CPES annd if not, why not? Any comments from folks who have used both would be appreciated.

    Jamie
    So Jamie, you have used both? Then you know that S1 is quite thin, but Smith's even thinner by a good margin. I think that is about all there is to know. I use Smith's here and there around the shop. As somebody mentioned S1 has a higher percentage of solids. I triaged some deep interior rot pockets in a plank on the kutter last season with S1. Drank up quite a bit, topped with thickened fills (painted surface) etc. S1 did not appear inferior to Smith's in terms of that particular strategy. Maybe even a better choice.

    Awhile back somebody posted a link to some testing. Might have been from West, or someone associated with West. The tester did not name the thin and very thin epoxies, but I would almost bet they were Smith's and S1. The tester was less scathing of the 'thin' (S1 by my theory). Seemed like a fair test with some valid observations.
    Eric
    Last edited by Eric Hvalsoe; 12-16-2017 at 06:16 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    472

    Default Re: CPES and S1

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Hvalsoe View Post
    So Jamie, you have used both? Then you know that S1 is quite thin, but Smith's even thinner by a good margin. I think that is about all there is to know. I use Smith's here and there around the shop. As somebody mentioned S1 has a higher percentage of solids. I triaged some deep interior rot pockets in a plank on the kutter last season with S1. Drank up quite a bit, topped with thickened fills (painted surface) etc. S1 did not appear inferior to Smith's in terms of that particular strategy. Maybe even a better choice.

    Awhile back somebody posted a link to some testing. Might have been from West, or someone associated with West. The tester did not name the thin and very thin epoxies, but I would almost bet they were Smith's and S1. The tester was less scathing of the 'thin' (S1 by my theory). Seemed like a fair test with some valid observations.
    Eric
    Eric, no I haven't used CPES. If S1 is about as good then I won't have to buy another sealer and possibly have leftovers of both.

    Many thanks to everyone else who replied - I believe I have a bit better idea of how these products compare now. I'll get back to digging out rotten wood while I think about it.

    Jamie

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Deer Isle, Maine
    Posts
    1,426

    Default Re: CPES and S1

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Hvalsoe View Post
    ...Awhile back somebody posted a link to some testing. Might have been from West, or someone associated with West. The tester did not name the thin and very thin epoxies, but I would almost bet they were Smith's and S1. The tester was less scathing of the 'thin' (S1 by my theory). Seemed like a fair test with some valid observations.
    Eric
    Article in 'EpoxyWorks"...

    http://epoxyworks.com/index.php/pene...yth/#more-7278

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Hyannis, MA, USA
    Posts
    43,968

    Default Re: CPES and S1

    Good article so far as it goes and that is a serious limitation that leads to the article being misleading on several fronts.

    Niederer has not been around long enough to know (or he's suppressing) the fact that the Gudgeon's at first thought the 'S' in WEST stood for 'saturation'. They changed that to 'sealer' or 'sealing' some time I think in the late '70s or early '80s as they learned more about how their excellent product works. And they are correct that for bonding and for build-up surface coating it's the epoxy solids that mostly count while the solvents just evaporate off.

    Niederer uses that fact to mislead on the purposes of Mr. Smith's high proportion of solvents, which are at least three-fold.

    First, being so thin allows real penetration. This builds a stabile epoxy-wood matrix that's more than a few cells deep. Epoxy is vapor permeable and thin epoxy coating wood cells makes a stabile base that, if not otherwise protected, will let vapor pass. But so will thicker epoxy and paint. I know a good number of wood composite boats and all of those that live in the water, are not taken out for the winter, weigh more now than when built. I know a couple that were at some point taken out for more than a year and they shed hundreds of pounds getting dry. High solid coatings do resist water intrusion better than penetrating sealers . . . for a while. (Note that marine structures properly engineered account for moisture content. Dry wood is strong wood in the desert.)

    Second, this from my observation and I've not read it in Mr. Smith's literature, the exact mix of solvents appears to do what the "WD" in WD-40 is all about - water displacement. Other thinned epoxies (like the horrible in my opinion useless "GitRot") just join in the wet. CPES appears to me to drive water away. This matters a lot in stabilizing trouble spots in boats.

    Finally, again Mr. Smith does not tout this except by way of warning how dangerous his product is, CPES has so many highly toxic solvents that it's an effective wood preservative. And it's in there for a while. I helped bore holes for new outside ballast through the wood keel structure that had been CPED's and epoxy glued during it's original construction about ten years before. We could smell the CPES solvents being liberated from the auger waste. This was more than 6" from the nearest CPES'd surface. The "P" in penetrating really means it! Conventional preservatives either toxify the surface only or when pressure treated make the wood chemistry different leading to bonding problems. I find comfort in knowing the CPES will cause cancer in rocks, so to speak, and will certainly kill anything in its path.

    CPES is a bit like Coca Cola - that secret formula makes the difference and it's not really patentable in a way that provides real product protection. So Mr. Smith resorts to secrecy to keep folks like us from whipping up our own at half or less the cost.

    And perhaps CPES is like Coca Cola in another way also. There are people like myself who simply know that real Coke tastes better than competing colas. Those who think otherwise are as delusional as they think I am. Same with CPES. You can denigrate all you want, but we who know the real weasel pssss, know that it works.

    G'luck

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lindstrom, MN
    Posts
    1,920

    Default Re: CPES and S1

    CPES is a primer. Laminating resin is not.

    Bruce, for your own sake please stop reading here.

    When thinned with solvents, most, if not all room temperature cure laminating epoxies will be slow to fully harden and will be porous once the trapped solvents finally diffuse out. Laminating epoxies tend to cure before the solvent has a chance to evaporate, so it becomes trapped in the cured epoxy, which can't help but degrade the final properties.

    Paint, as I think I understand it, is formulated with epoxies and hardeners that are solid at room temperature and (primers especially) very slow to fully cure. CPES contains one of these epoxies. Without knowing the curing agent (they don't list one on the SDS) and a dearth of knowledge of the cure times for these things anyway, my assumption is that it is very slow to cure. It dries quickly enough, but dry and cured are two different animals. So what happens is that the paint is dry to the touch, but not cured. This is good because that leaves plenty of time for the next coat to chemically bond. I have easily cleaned hard, dry, day old primer off a part with acetone. That same primer after a week can be scrubbed with MEK without damaging it.

    WW CPES part B contains a small amount of resin. The resin in CPES is Poly(Bisphenol A-co-epichlorohydrin) glycidyl end-capped, CAS No. 25036-25-3 which has a melting point of 85C. It is used in powder coatings. The part I understand is the melting point. What they fail to mention in Part A is the hardener, if there is one. For all I know, there is nothing but solvent in Part A*. The hardener or hardeners is probably technically non-toxic or none of them is in a concentration legally required to be listed on a SDS. When you apply CPES, it soaks into the wood and when it dries, the small amount of uncured resin (and hardener if any) is left behind as a thin coating on the surface. ('Surface' includes the inside of any open pore, not just a superficial coating.) The coating formed is dry, probably fairly hard, and for some time after drying will react with any epoxy or polyurethane that is applied over it. So Yes, I think it may be an effective primer. But no, I don't think that it will stop rot that is more than a few mm deep. The deeper the rot the dryer the wood has to be. A borate or glycol plus borate treatment can penetrate rot, but has to be dry before encapsulating it.

    As for Ian's claims, I think that Ian is very thorough and careful with surface preparation and application, and this is why he has been successful. If you think CPES is forgiving and take shortcuts, I don't think that you will get the same results. If you want to dilute your own epoxy with solvents, use the slowest hardener you can, apply thinly and give it plenty of time to dry all of the solvent. Use low boiling point solvents like acetone. Avoid anything that is slow to evaporate.

    There is a conformal coating for electronics called Uralane 5750 and a PU potting compound called Uralane 5753. Unless I swapped the numbers again. Not important. The only difference is that the coating is thinned with toluene. The neat resin easily passes the NASA outgassing test. The coating does not. The reason being that to get enough coating weight to run the test, you have to apply it too thick to dry before it cures. The trapped toluene takes forever to diffuse out, so the weight loss in a vacuum is over the limit. FWIW I also know how to make it blue.

    *Of the 4 SDS from Smith, only one mentions a non-slovent ingredient. Their SDS are the most elaborate uninformative SDS ever.
    Management is the art of counting beans. Leadership is the art of making every being count. --Joe Finch

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Madison Wisconsin
    Posts
    8,781

    Default Re: CPES and S1

    Bruce, for your own sake please stop reading here.
    Agreed. The kool-aid in here is getting knee deep and with very little basis in the truth. Even calling these solvents diluted with a little bit of resin "sealers" is ridiculous. Primers? Maybe. Sealers? Not hardly, unless you want to try to claim they're sealers chocked full of little holes and bare spots, and what good would that be?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    472

    Default Re: CPES and S1

    Hi All - kinda sorry I asked. Since this is the season of peace and goodwill, what say we just drop it?

    Jamie

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    225

    Default Re: CPES and S1

    Quote Originally Posted by MN Dave View Post
    If you know what is good for you, you avoid arguing politics, religion, the best anchor, penetrating epoxy and amine blus in polite company.
    Should "graphite powder increases scuff resistance" and "use solvents to remove blush" be added to the list of those that we do not talk about?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Madison Wisconsin
    Posts
    8,781

    Default Re: CPES and S1

    No, because both of those are false.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •