Sonic Shield, does it work?

[cmsmarine]

So many questions and a good level of conversation regarding the subject.

You may find either of these two articles of interest, it goes someway to giving you all some 'independent' information on the product. A Link to the Moody Owners Club review can be found here and the most recent magazine article written can be found here

Some customer reviews can be found here

Anyone on this forum is welcome to try our system as are any of our customers. As you have all identified it is very difficult for us to prove the system works. The only way this can be achieved is to run a system for yourself, on your own boat, in your own waters. To avoid getting picked up specifically about advertising for any of you interested in 'Trying' the system you will find the details about the trial here. Any specific questions you have regarding this trial I would advise you DM me or email me, the contacts are on the website.

In answer to the very valid skepticism over the 'Money Back Guarantee' I can give you the following information to allow you to make your own checks. We are Cotswold Microsystems Ltd, Company registration number 1625178 and our registered offices are 4 St Albans Road, Gloucester, GL2 5FW. Please perform all necessary checks on our company finances, solvency etc. We are a family business that has been running for 32 years.

We gain absolutely nothing in life from unhappy customers.

I hope this goes some way to answering some of your questions. If not please feel free to ask more and I will aim to help in anyway possible.

 

[cmsmarine]

Hello Hurricane.

Please see the attached photo of a Princess 56 berthed in Lymington. She was used by Princess Motor Yachts at Southampton Boat Show last year and had been in the water from around Nov 12 until being lifted in June 13 for a check over.


The growth you are seeing is on the bathing platform, and in my opinion would be classed as significant growth. The reason the growth has not been limited on this platform is due to the fact that the transom of this P56 has a Plywood core (as to quite a few motor boats), the platform is then bolted to this wood and as such is effectively isolated from the boats hull as far as Ultrasonics are concerned.

If you then look towards the bottom of the photo and also to the bottom right of the photo you will be able to see the props and rudder of this boat. No antifouling had been on either the props nor the rudder.

When you consider the level of growth on the boat compared with the condition of the propellers I would suggest that in this particular example the SonicShield system has worked very well for protecting the running gear etc.

You are correct to highlight the issue with protection props / rudders etc as this in my opinion has always been the limitation of paints. At no point do we suggest that a boat will never need painitng again, however one of the main benefits of the SonicShield is that through correct transducer positioning we are able to maximise the cleaning potential of the running gear.

If you were wondering what our advise is on how to keep the platform clean, we now advise in exceptional circumstances to install a transducer directly to the platform mounting bracket. This improves the situation but depending on the specific case will not completely limit the growth.

As a journalist once wrote about our product we dont claim to have a "golden panacea for all antifouling ills in our toolbox", which I think is a far comment regarding any Antifouling product as there rarely is a magic fix to all problems.

Cheers

 

[Marsupial]

So many questions and a good level of conversation regarding the subject.

You may find either of these two articles of interest, it goes someway to giving you all some 'independent' information on the product. A Link to the Moody Owners Club review can be found here and the most recent magazine article written can be found here

Some customer reviews can be found here

Anyone on this forum is welcome to try our system as are any of our customers. As you have all identified it is very difficult for us to prove the system works. The only way this can be achieved is to run a system for yourself, on your own boat, in your own waters. To avoid getting picked up specifically about advertising for any of you interested in 'Trying' the system you will find the details about the trial here. Any specific questions you have regarding this trial I would advise you DM me or email me, the contacts are on the website.

In answer to the very valid skepticism over the 'Money Back Guarantee' I can give you the following information to allow you to make your own checks. We are Cotswold Microsystems Ltd, Company registration number 1625178 and our registered offices are 4 St Albans Road, Gloucester, GL2 5FW. Please perform all necessary checks on our company finances, solvency etc. We are a family business that has been running for 32 years.

We gain absolutely nothing in life from unhappy customers.

I hope this goes some way to answering some of your questions. If not please feel free to ask more and I will aim to help in anyway possible.

Just looked at the first review in sonicantifoulingworks link, I my humble opinion you will have to better than that, the level of fouling is what we all expect given the description of the vessels use and its prepareation but worst of all there is no control group, so like all the other manufacturers you tell us it works and expect us to believe you. I think I speak for most boat owners when I say I wish it did work, but the evidence just dosent stack up. But worse still you industry uses evidence of antifouling failure as A success when clearly its an abject failure not only of the ultrasound but also the antifouling paint allegedly applied.

 

[cmsmarine]

Valid points indeed. It is almost impossible to have a like for like comparison with a control boat as fouling conditions even within a marina will vary. We can only report feedback from customers who knew the fouling conditions on there boat last season and compare against this season. Even this is not 'scientific' as fouling conditions will also change year on year. The only person who is able to say if it works for them is the boat owner and this is based on there own evidence. Other peoples results are not directly related to the results you will see on your own boat. The basic science will ensure algae is not allowed to grow. A power supply will ensure the system is running. Other than that it is only able to be deemed successful on your own boat. I am happy to report that more and more people are taking Ultrasonics as a protection method when compared with the number taking it just 3 years ago.

Just looked at the first review in sonicantifoulingworks link, I my humble opinion you will have to better than that, the level of fouling is what we all expect given the description of the vessels use and its prepareation but worst of all there is no control group, so like all the other manufacturers you tell us it works and expect us to believe you. I think I speak for most boat owners when I say I wish it did work, but the evidence just dosent stack up. But worse still you industry uses evidence of antifouling failure as A success when clearly its an abject failure not only of the ultrasound but also the antifouling paint allegedly applied.

 

[Marsupial]

Valid points indeed. It is almost impossible to have a like for like comparison with a control boat as fouling conditions even within a marina will vary. We can only report feedback from customers who knew the fouling conditions on there boat last season and compare against this season. Even this is not 'scientific' as fouling conditions will also change year on year. The only person who is able to say if it works for them is the boat owner and this is based on there own evidence. Other peoples results are not directly related to the results you will see on your own boat. The basic science will ensure algae is not allowed to grow. A power supply will ensure the system is running. Other than that it is only able to be deemed successful on your own boat. I am happy to report that more and more people are taking Ultrasonics as a protection method when compared with the number taking it just 3 years ago.

No I disagree its not impossible to have a control group, yes there are seasonal variations but the same set of boats (sonic, antifouled, placebo and bare) in the same environment will show up the technology that's worked best that season - Basic Science! My coppercoat has now been on for 11 years, in a Marina in the UK for 7, where the boat didn't move for 18 months due to commitments, the med in a lagoon for 2 years and now in Turkey where it gets moderate use. She has only been hauled twice in that time and I see no barnacles no weed, slight slime; that's the standard you have to match without the need for annual hauling, cleaning and antifouling.

I've only been around boats for 54 years and in that time I have not witnessed massive variations in fouling in the same marina where many boats are using the same antifoul, there are variations in the same marina where boats use different antifoul treatments. So locals quickly learn what works. And this is the point of your objective testing.

"The basic science will ensure algae is not allowed to grow."

So why is the same "basic science" used to promote plant growth? I am sure I don't know but there are legions of "scientific" papers out there that claim to, you cant all be right.

But your biggest problem is that you have no basic science, please carry out a proper test, there are plenty of us on here, adequately qualified, who will scope it out for you and will be only to pleased to buy your product if you can demonstrate that it works.

I looked at this technology for a client several years ago, they wanted to install sonics in their marina as an alternative to dry stack, I could find no definitive independent evidence that it worked, but that was then this is now - change my mind.

 

[cmsmarine]

I am going to be honest and say that until your post I had not heard of Ultrasonics being used to increase / promote the growth of vegetables. From the limited information supplied it would seem that Radishes thrive in the presence of ultrasonics, as there is no data on what frequencies used I am unable to comment on if this is contradictory to the information supplied by Universities around the world that have been investigating the affects of Ultrasound on Algae formation in lakes and ponds.

The frequencies we all use in our antifouling products are between 20-40 Khz. Specific frequencies within this range are omitted to reduce overall power consumption and other frequencies that through our experience are given a higher proportion of time when the system is running.

Attached is a report written at KTH university in Stockholm here whereby they used our product to assess the affect of the Ultrasonic frequencies we use to deter the build up of algae. I know from experience that frequencies below 20Khz or above 40Khz have absolutely no affect on algae growth on a boats hull.

I can only suggest that the frequencies used in the report you submit are outside of the range we use or it could even be that the ultrasonic frequencies deter the bacteria in the soil and this subsequently improves the growrth potential. Unfortunately I am no biologist and as such can not able in any capacity to answer you question.

I am only able to comment on our product.

As previously mentioned you are more than welcome to try one for your self.

sam

No I disagree its not impossible to have a control group, yes there are seasonal variations but the same set of boats (sonic, antifouled, placebo and bare) in the same environment will show up the technology that's worked best that season - Basic Science! My coppercoat has now been on for 11 years, in a Marina in the UK for 7, where the boat didn't move for 18 months due to commitments, the med in a lagoon for 2 years and now in Turkey where it gets moderate use. She has only been hauled twice in that time and I see no barnacles no weed, slight slime; that's the standard you have to match without the need for annual hauling, cleaning and antifouling.

I've only been around boats for 54 years and in that time I have not witnessed massive variations in fouling in the same marina where many boats are using the same antifoul, there are variations in the same marina where boats use different antifoul treatments. So locals quickly learn what works. And this is the point of your objective testing.

"The basic science will ensure algae is not allowed to grow."

So why is the same "basic science" used to promote plant growth? I am sure I don't know but there are legions of "scientific" papers out there that claim to, you cant all be right.

But your biggest problem is that you have no basic science, please carry out a proper test, there are plenty of us on here, adequately qualified, who will scope it out for you and will be only to pleased to buy your product if you can demonstrate that it works.

I looked at this technology for a client several years ago, they wanted to install sonics in their marina as an alternative to dry stack, I could find no definitive independent evidence that it worked, but that was then this is now - change my mind.

 

[Marsupial]

Just Google "Using Ultrasound to promote plant growth" you will find lots to wade through, some of it is obviously hearsay some of it looks as though it could have an objective science background most is subjective rubbish. If you feel really adventurous you can do the same in several of the many academic databases, it will keep you busy.

Some list the frequencies they use or the spectrum of frequencies, I just picked one at random, a sample not THE one there are hundreds of them. The frequencies are the same as the frequencies used by the antifouling technologists - so who is right? You will be aware that the idea started when engineers examined submarine hulls where the ASDIC was fitted, the anecdotal evidence suggests they noticed there were no barnacles at that position so this is encouraging. BUT: The big thing is power, if you want to make an impact with ultrasound you need some power, about 2KW according to my limited research, and even then you wont definitely stop molluscs and you stand a good chance of damaging the boat.

To be honest the really big thing you have to address is WHY there were any barnacles at all on the Finish test boat, not only did the sonic system fail to deter these molluscs but so did the antifouling paint, a total failure. In my humble opinion and experience.

So again, PLEASE convince us it works with objective independent testing, we don't do suck it and see.

 

[paultallett]

I have to say reading through these posts, the only way to answer the question of does it work or not is quite simple.

If Sam was to offer to install 2 sets, one in to a boat moored in the UK, the other moored in the Med and then after a year show the results. This could make a great MBY or MBM article. If things work as Sam says then his company will be on to a winner.

Just before anyone mentions it, I'm not interested in being part of the test.

This way just makes the most sense to me.

 

[cmsmarine]

On the Finnish boat there was no antifouling paint whatsoever. The editor wanted to test the system and the system alone without the potential confusion of paints. It is acknowledged in his report that he installed the system as advised by the manufacturer (ie CMS Marine) but despite our recommendations of applying a hard based racing paint he decided not to in the interest of testing.

Unlike in the original days of commercially produced Ultrasonic systems we do not promise the world. Any boat user with stern drives will have it explained to them by any of my sales team that by the design of a stern drive they are primarily focused at reducing vibrations into the boat. We are trying to pass sound waves out to the drive and as such we would advise that the cleaning affect on the outdrives will be reduced. We enhance the affect on the stern drive by advising customers with this type of boat to locate the transducers closer to inside of the transom, wherby a prop customer would be further forward nearer to the P-Bracket

I personally feel and this view was shared by the editor and also by a fair few people I show this photo too at Boat shows around Europe that the stern drive was actually relatively clean. The reason I think the photo of the outdrive is good is that it shows that there were barnacles in the water and a few of them attached to the outdrive. There is are not shells on the hull which in this particular case demonstrates the systems ability at removing the food source for shells and as such deters barnacle growth.

In the past there has only been photos of boats with brilliantly clean hulls, supposedly after 2 years in the water looking like the day they went in. Nobody believes this can be true. In some weak fouling areas the boat can look quite good but these people dont really have a problem with fouling anyway. The finnish boat shows a very good level of dead green slime all over the hull. This is what we would expect to see and the majority would be removed by hand washing alone. A light pressure wash will clean all of it away.

I concur that 2KW is far too powerful for most leisure boats running at a continuous frequency.

You are obviously well versed in the history of the product and are aware that the amount of power required to destroy algae at single cell level is significantly lower than that required to destroy molluscs.

Our system is not able to clean a boat that is already fouled, it is a preventative measure to stop the algae from growing.

Suck it and see is not how we like to work either. It insinuates it may or may not work.

We believe in our product as we have used historical best practice / reports combined with our 32 year electronic development capability to ensure that we have the most intelligent and subsequently most powerful ultrasonic systems available.

We unlike other companies do put our money where our mouth is and are prepared to allow any customer try our product for 6 months on a no Risk trial.

In our 5 years of selling the product we have found this to be the only way to break the cycle of does it /doesnt it.

At your service

Sam

 

[longjohnsilver]

Sam, it seems that the same suggestions were made a year ago re fitting to test vessels and then publishing the results... You've now posted quite a few times on another similar thread over the past few days, but each time this suggestion has been made you've remained silent. I can only conclude that you're only here to sell your product which is not what the forums are about.

Without meaning to be rude, put up or shut up.

 

[cmsmarine]

Long John,

With regards to this thread a suggestion was made by a member of a test that could be performed in his opinion but made it clear he was not interested in taking part. In this particular thread there was nothing to follow up.

As the topic of Ultrasonic appears regularly I can only assume that people have a vested interest in acquiring further information on the topic. In my most recent posts a forum member said that if a company was prepared to offer a money back guarantee then it would be useful. I decided to inform the forum that our company does offer such a guarantee.

I generally am interested to provide information I have to the forum and am always conscious of not overtly advertising.

Any member of the UK boating community has the ability to try our product to see the results for themselves we the confidence they can return the product if not 100% satisfied.

I would suggest that this demonstrates that as a company we are "putting up".

There has been a lot of traffic on our website over the last few days that has been referred from YBW and so I suggest that forum members are interested in knowing more details.

Thanks

Sam

Sam, it seems that the same suggestions were made a year ago re fitting to test vessels and then publishing the results... You've now posted quite a few times on another similar thread over the past few days, but each time this suggestion has been made you've remained silent. I can only conclude that you're only here to sell your product which is not what the forums are about.

Without meaning to be rude, put up or shut up.

 

[sealines28]

Sam, it seems that the same suggestions were made a year ago re fitting to test vessels and then publishing the results... You've now posted quite a few times on another similar thread over the past few days, but each time this suggestion has been made you've remained silent. I can only conclude that you're only here to sell your product which is not what the forums are about.

Without meaning to be rude, put up or shut up.

I fully agree with longjohnsilver, I now you offer a 6 months trial, BUT you still have to pay money up front. Who would want the hassle of paying for it and fitting, only to have it removed after 6 months if you not happy, Being company focussed and wanting to prove that you have a lot of faith in your product, I would offer to GIVE the unit to a few customers or formites free of charge to carry out the trials of your product.

I fitted a ultra sonic unit to my boat (SealineS28) and was very disappointed with the results and yes I did follow the instructions and fitted the unit near the rear, Yes I did have clean new antifoul on the hull. Result after one year in the Solent no difference from other years. But I will say that it was not one of your units.

So Sam are you up for the challenge!!!!!!!

I now have a second boat and would not fit one to it until It was proven to greatly reduce the fouling.

 

[jrudge]

The other challenge of course is that quite rightly the system has to be installed with a clean hull. Most of us only lift once a year, and I doubt pay much attention or have a reference point as to how fouled the hull is after 6 months, which in any event would require them to go swimming ( no problem in the med but a bit more of an issue in the UK).

The challenge you face is no one believes is works.

If it does we will all buy it. The cost equates to about a third of a tank of fuel in my case so if i though it worked buying it would be a no brainer. It is not about the money for most I suspect but simply why bother!

Advertising is expensive. I have no idea what an add in a magazine costs but it would be a few k for a page at least. Here for the cost price of the unit ( 1/3 rd of retail? ) you can possibly sell a load of them ... if they work. Money back is not really the issue.

My view if you believe in it then offer a few complimentary units to trusted forumites and see what happens.

There are plenty of people on here who fall into the "trusted" category and have been posting for years.

I am with longjohnsilver - either put it to the forum as a long term test or probably decline to post - the forum is not an advertising place.

You will however have to be quick. The season has started ( in the Med at least) and boats will be coming to there end of their lift / foul routine - and you need a clean hull to start with . JFMs offer was most generous to cover up blocks of his hull with non antifoul paint.

 

[KevB]

Sam, you will never make everyone happy here and I think you are doing a good job in sticking to the facts and not getting baited into an argument. If I didn't have coppercoat I'd give it a go. What would I have to lose, £75.

 

[jrudge]

I agree re the £75 + the time to fit it, but to even bother there has to be a belief if will work - there isn't!

It is a simple commercial proposition. Fit it to peoples boats trusted by the forum. Works sell lots. Doesnt work - people won't ( and aren't anyway!)

We give away product to influential reference clients quite often so the concept is not exactly ground breaking.

If you believe in it give a few away ( or ask for deferred payment at the end). It if works it would be transformational to the business.

 

[longjohnsilver]

Long John,

With regards to this thread a suggestion was made by a member of a test that could be performed in his opinion but made it clear he was not interested in taking part. In this particular thread there was nothing to follow up.

As the topic of Ultrasonic appears regularly I can only assume that people have a vested interest in acquiring further information on the topic. In my most recent posts a forum member said that if a company was prepared to offer a money back guarantee then it would be useful. I decided to inform the forum that our company does offer such a guarantee.

I generally am interested to provide information I have to the forum and am always conscious of not overtly advertising.

Any member of the UK boating community has the ability to try our product to see the results for themselves we the confidence they can return the product if not 100% satisfied.

I would suggest that this demonstrates that as a company we are "putting up".

There has been a lot of traffic on our website over the last few days that has been referred from YBW and so I suggest that forum members are interested in knowing more details.

Thanks

Sam

Sam, I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that lots of people have a vested interest in gathering info on ultrasonic antifouling.
I'm one of probably many boat owners here who would be delighted to find a solution to stern gear fouling. However the ultrasonic solution has been around for almost as long as I've been boating (30 years) and I've still yet to see conclusive evidence that it works. And all the people I know (and trust) who have fitted these systems report that, in their opinion, it was a waste of time and money.

So why would I want to spend time fitting something in which I had no confidence, along with the disruption, on the basis I could get my money back if not satisfied. And how can I be sure that the guarantee is watertight, I'd want more than the word of a company that's here today but possibly not tomorrow. There are a fair number of ultrasonic firms that have come and gone over the years, so that gives me little confidence in your guarantee.

So why not take up the offer that jfm has made on the other thread? He's got a a multi million pound boat so I think you can be sure he's not going to run off without paying. And if, as you seem to firmly believe, he reports that your product works, I'll be one of the first in the queue to buy, no doubt with many others on here.

So what have you got to lose?

 

[longjohnsilver]

Seems that Sam has now shut up, despite only posting on U/S threads and having been logged on since I last posted, he doesn't seem interested in jfm's offer.

Draw your own conclusions.