Jaycar ultrasonic antifouling

pessimist

pessimist

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 May 2003
Messages
3,210
Location
Exmoor. Boat in Dartmuff.
Visit site
I have just taken delivery of a ready built Jaycar antifouling system. I have no real interest in trying to build from a kit and the kits don't seem to be available at the moment anyway (that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it:)).

At just over £300 as opposed to just under £200 for two kits it seems pretty good value anyway.

I'll report on its efficacy next year.
 
I have had a look on thier website and it seems to be used on motorboats without keels. Has anyone got experience of using one of these on a yacht with iron keels?
 
I built 2 kits and fitted them on my Moody 44 earlier this year. Over the summer there was still some fouling but not as much as Ive had in previous years.

I havent had a good enough test period to fully evaluate/recommend them yet and the situation is further muddied because there is AF paint still on the hull and working. That said, Im sure that fouling has been reduced significantly and the rudder and keel were completely clear of weed when we were lifted at begining of last month.

I am hopeful that they will allow me to skip a year on lift out (ie keep the boat in the marina for 2 years between lift out and scrub/AF). If I can do that, the kits will certainly have paid for themselves.

Norman E was the early adopter on this kit and I believe his lift out (after 18 months in the water) is this month. Be interested in your feedback/opinion Norman ?
 
Halo said:
I have had a look on thier website and it seems to be used on motorboats without keels. Has anyone got experience of using one of these on a yacht with iron keels?
Click to expand...

I have. (I wrote the PBO article)
I will report when the boat is lifted, as I am currently sailing. There is some fouling, around the waterline, and the rudder, which ultrasonic systems do not protect, has plenty. I think it is reasonably successful, with some caveats about ensuring that the transducers do not unscrew themselves and break the contact with the hull. I will know more when the boat is lifted in about two weeks, after two seasons in the briny, but as far as I can tell now the level of fouling is no worse than I had after one season without it.
 
Halo said:
I have had a look on thier website and it seems to be used on motorboats without keels...
Click to expand...

Why do you think that? Their web site says "Suitable for power or sail".

[Later] I see that the dual version features pictures of motorboats, but it is the same transducer and driver circuit as the single output version, just a different microcontroller. I'm part way through a design similar to the dual version, but I've got sidetracked.
 
Last edited:
Hi Nigel
Many thanks for your input. My thought was that since the system works on high frequency vibration it would be more difficult to achieve a result on a ton of cast iron in the form of keel rather than a grp hull. After all one of the main uses of cast iron is in machine tool beds where its vibration absorbing properties are useful. Also the keel ends are furthest from the ultrasonic source.
Martin
 
A friend bought and installed one of the ready made systems (can't recall the manufacturer) - just one transducer was reckoned to be OK, he put it on the back end. This was just over two years ago. First year was mostly in a half-tide berth. It worked....sort of, but not as well as expected. Last year was on a swinging mooring and better results. The back was pretty clear but a second transducer really needed to give better results on the front. There's a hefty cast-iron bulb keel which also seemed not to have been jiggled about enough to keep all fouling off.
His conclusions are: reduced effectiveness in mud-berths and on solid metal but worth it for reducing that steady speed loss through the season.
Trouble is not a reliable scientific test. He used a coat of cheap antifoul the first year. For second year he theorised that photosynthesis meant no fouling during the dark so used a time switch to have the U/S on only during the day. I know, I know - barnacles!
 
Biggest uncertainty so far seems to be how much active anti-fouling was still present when the systems were installed. Needs a volunteer whose boat hasn't been anti-fouled for some years (and is probably thick with fouling) to thoroughly clean off and THEN try one.

Edit: actually of course it needs a decent sized sample of boats all doing this to have any real validity.
 
Last edited:
Antifouling

I am using a CleanAboat ultrasonic cleaner and Have a Kelt8.5 which does does have a steel keel and steel platform that the boat sits on. Great success so far minimum growth and the running gear stays clean much longer.
 
VicMallows said:
Biggest uncertainty so far seems to be how much active anti-fouling was still present when the systems were installed. Needs a volunteer whose boat hasn't been anti-fouled for some years (and is probably thick with fouling) to thoroughly clean off and THEN try one.

Edit: actually of course it needs a decent sized sample of boats all doing this to have any real validity.
Click to expand...

AGREE - Thats why I feel that my results were inconclusive. I dont feel confident enough to be relaunched next season without a coat of AF.

Re: comments on effectiveness of UASF on rudder. Ecept is a few nooks and crannies, mine was completely clear of weed and barnacles when the boat was lifted. My rear trasnducer is (sort of) directly above the rudder so that might have helped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top