Reports suggest / seems to make a difference / Antifouling Article

I

ianabc

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 Oct 2003
Messages
680
Location
BC Canada
Visit site
Article in PBO published online today reviewing ultrasonic antifouling.

Where is the science?

Sadly lacking in rigerous protocols and proper testing?
 
The "science" is there - explained how it is supposed to work in the text. Just that it seems on these tests (as in previous tests) to be remarkably ineffective.
 
I don't think PBO could afford to do a rigorous set of tests to approved scientific methods. I think given what they did do then if any of them had been at all effective there would have been an easily identifiable difference between the boats without them and with. As there wasn't and it seems the noise of the devices was also an issue so that they kept being turned off then it seemed to prove they are just a complete waste of time, certainly on sailboats. I just have A/F and all I had was slime on the hull, and barnacles on the prop similar to the pictures they showed and I was in the water from April to November without a single scrub off. She was used for probably 2 weekend trips per month so sits in the marina a fair bit so plenty of time for lots of growth to establish.

It would probably be more informative to have no A/F and compare boats with and without and a monthly check to see if they make any difference at all. I guess owners would not be happy to do that as the control boats would soon be a conservation area.

Just think you can get 10 years worth of antifouling paint which does work for the price of most of those units.
 
I thought the conclusion was that it was a fairly marginal improvement? You would need a much more dramatic difference to spend that much money.
 
A chum of mine upped his installation to two transducers. His anecdotal conclusion was that it slowed down growth. He put on hard a/f as well a bit later. Then two years ago the a/f came off and he applied one of the copper coatings.
So none of it was magic dust and it's hard to say just how effective any of it is from such reports. My chum reckons he doesn't start to slow down until later than before.
 
I thought it was really useful test that taught me two things:-

Firstly that ultrasonic antifoul is a waste of money, and
Secondly that editorial content is influenced by fear of loss of advertising revenue (Cynic? Me?)

:rolleyes:
 
skyflyer said:
I thought it was really useful test that taught me two things:-

Firstly that ultrasonic antifoul is a waste of money, and
Secondly that editorial content is influenced by fear of loss of advertising revenue (Cynic? Me?)

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Perhaps more interesting that none of the manufacturers offered any explanation as to why their products did not seem to work. Usually the mag gives them the opportunity, but seemingly not in this case.
 
ianabc said:
Article in PBO published online today reviewing ultrasonic antifouling.

Where is the science?

Sadly lacking in rigerous protocols and proper testing?
Click to expand...

Got a link?

I use Seahawk and its works well.


Island-44-Large.sflb.ashx

Tin-Based – 1000 Series

Islands 44 Plus was developed for the harshest tropical environments in the world. Islands 44 Plus is a multi-seasonal self-polishing paint. It has a high load of copper and tin that will ensure maximum protection against marine growth.
Islands 44 Plus is also available in a hard formulation.
It has the same properties, just a little harder, for our "mega" yacht customers.

Self-cleaning copolymer with high load of tin (TBT) and copper
The only tin (TBT) paint available on the market
Highest level of antifoulant protection available
Highest quality grade of cuprous oxide available (more potent active ingredient)

- See more at: http://www.seahawkpaints.com/Our-Products/Product/Islands-44-Plus.aspx#sthash.LRUPfr81.dpuf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top