Ultra sonic anti fouling

jrudge said:
It seems to me that the science says this will work, but that in practice for whatever reason it does not.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but where's the science?

I'm yet to see any kind of independent peer reviewed experiment or test that proves it works. I'd have expected a vendor would have presented such evidence, if they had confidence in their systems. Independent testimony counts for nothing.
 
Annageek.

best way to keep a boat clean is to keep it out the water :)

Thank you for your input.

Speaking from a company point of view #3 is closest to the mark. Independence is lost when something is commissioned. If you are interested I do have a number of University reports on the affect of our SonicShield product on the destruction of algae that have been prepared in conjunction with internal development and the support of academic studies, I can send these to you to get your take on if you are interested, if so please PM your details.

In our experience it is very hard to demonstrate / test a system (as was seen in the PBO review). We work on improving the hardware and application of a process that is known to remove algae, We then spend our time ensuring all potential customers are aware of the limitations of a system (as with all antifouls - see comments on Micron 77 earlier in the thread) and finally offer the ability to try in the real world.

Seeing the results for your own eye's in our experience is the only way to give customers the info they need.

Sam
 
annageek said:
This is not something that I tend to get involved with (the joys of dry stacking!) but one thing that strikes me as crazy is this (correct me if I am wrong - as the evidence may exist - I've just never seen it):

Could an ultrasonic AF system manufacturer not get two identical hulls (needn't be big, just identical), one fitted with ultrasonic AF, one without, and leave them in two adjacent marina berths for a season. It's not a prohibitively expensive test, in my opinion. The results would surely speak for themselves. The experiment could be improved by a third hull painted in a popular AF paint.

To me, the absence of the data means one of four things.

1. The experiment has been completed by an ultrasonic AF manufacturer, but the results proved the system to be ineffective/only marginally effective.

2. The experiment hasn't been completed by an ultrasonic AF manufacturer as there was little confidence the (fairly modest) financial outlay of the experiment would give a favourable result.

3. The experiment has been completed, but lacks credibility due to the introduction of experimental bias as a result of, say, the involvement of, or association with an ultrasonic AF manufacturer in the undertaking of the experiment.

4. The experiment has taken place, but I am unaware of it and the debate as to whether ultrasonic AF systems work or not inexplicably crops up week after week despite there being evidence to prove/disprove the effectiveness of such a system.

As an aside, I head on the radio the other day about a study by a group of ecologists on the effect of visible light (white light from LEDs) on marine growth. The found that certain types of light promoted the growth of certain organisms and repelled other types. They were specifically looking at ways they could use their findings to produce some sort of optical AF system for marine structures/vessels. All a bit pie in the sky, but could be interesting nonetheless! It could have implications for systems that provide some AF protection for hard-to-AF areas, e.g. props.
Click to expand...

genius. We need someone with a catamaran.

edit - where's rick p anyone heard form him lately - he'd be ideal.
 
Last edited:
cmsmarine said:
JFM,

Can you advise which system you had on your Squadron please? Not all ultrasonic systems are the same and most people so far have made reference to a self built Australian Jay Car system which is vastly inferior to the UK designed and built systems.

Glad to hear the Micron 77 is doing the job for you. Long may it last

Sam
Cms Marine
Click to expand...
Sam
I had a 2009 squadron 58 and fitted two units from ultrasonic-antifouling.com = ultrasonic antifouling ltd, Poole. I think they are rebranded dutch units. Each transducer was a grey plastic cylinder, perhaps 40mm dia and 70mm high. I sanded the inside of the hull flat and epoxied an internally threaded mounting ring on. The transducers were positioned one above each propeller and left turned on permanently. Halfway through the year I sold the boat but kept in touch (still do) with new owner. when he lifted the boat a year after the US install the antifoul paint was fine (M77, black) but the props were covered in growth

I realise the props are arguably acoustically insulated but if U/S cannot deal with them on that basis it is a useless product imho, because M77 paint is already a perfect solution for the hull. It is the props that are the problem for which we seek a magic solution and will pay £000's for
 
annageek said:
This is not something that I tend to get involved with (the joys of dry stacking!) but one thing that strikes me as crazy is this (correct me if I am wrong - as the evidence may exist - I've just never seen it):

Could an ultrasonic AF system manufacturer not get two identical hulls (needn't be big, just identical), one fitted with ultrasonic AF, one without, and leave them in two adjacent marina berths for a season. It's not a prohibitively expensive test, in my opinion. The results would surely speak for themselves. The experiment could be improved by a third hull painted in a popular AF paint.

To me, the absence of the data means one of four things.

1. The experiment has been completed by an ultrasonic AF manufacturer, but the results proved the system to be ineffective/only marginally effective.

2. The experiment hasn't been completed by an ultrasonic AF manufacturer as there was little confidence the (fairly modest) financial outlay of the experiment would give a favourable result.

3. The experiment has been completed, but lacks credibility due to the introduction of experimental bias as a result of, say, the involvement of, or association with an ultrasonic AF manufacturer in the undertaking of the experiment.

4. The experiment has taken place, but I am unaware of it and the debate as to whether ultrasonic AF systems work or not inexplicably crops up week after week despite there being evidence to prove/disprove the effectiveness of such a system.

As an aside, I head on the radio the other day about a study by a group of ecologists on the effect of visible light (white light from LEDs) on marine growth. The found that certain types of light promoted the growth of certain organisms and repelled other types. They were specifically looking at ways they could use their findings to produce some sort of optical AF system for marine structures/vessels. All a bit pie in the sky, but could be interesting nonetheless! It could have implications for systems that provide some AF protection for hard-to-AF areas, e.g. props.
Click to expand...

Anna, what I'd like to see is a boat with U/sonic and bare propellers plus 500x500 patches of ordinary household paint aft, forward, midships painted over the antifoul. Then see how it works for a season.

Sam, I'm lifting my boat (in Antibes, where it has a permanent berth) next month and if you want to send me a kit I'll install it (one transducer above each propeller) and do this. I mean bare propellers, and the hull done in black M77 but several big squares of glass white paint with no antifoul at all. You can check/supervise the install if you wish; I'm there every weekend

Sam I realise your offer is buy the kit and if unhappy ask for money back. I'm offering to you however that you give me the kit, I'll do the square paint patches etc to your satisfaction, and if I'm happy I'll pay you when the boat is lifted in March 2016 and post the results on here. Perhaps one other person might do a UK water test
 
jrudge said:
Well I think we can trust JFM for an un biased review!
Click to expand...

Yes, he thinks they're ****:)

It would be interesting to have a trial as Sam tells us they're much better and more powerful than previous versions. I hope he agrees to jfm's offer, but no response from him so far......
 
jfm said:
Anna, what I'd like to see is a boat with U/sonic and bare propellers plus 500x500 patches of ordinary household paint aft, forward, midships painted over the antifoul. Then see how it works for a season.

Sam, I'm lifting my boat (in Antibes, where it has a permanent berth) next month and if you want to send me a kit I'll install it (one transducer above each propeller) and do this. I mean bare propellers, and the hull done in black M77 but several big squares of glass white paint with no antifoul at all. You can check/supervise the install if you wish; I'm there every weekend

Sam I realise your offer is buy the kit and if unhappy ask for money back. I'm offering to you however that you give me the kit, I'll do the square paint patches etc to your satisfaction, and if I'm happy I'll pay you when the boat is lifted in March 2016 and post the results on here. Perhaps one other person might do a UK water test
Click to expand...

Or, if he wants a real challenge - he could choose a boat at Sant Carles where the growth seems to be the most aggressive.
I'm sure there would be several boats willing to try.
 
jrudge said:
We all think it is **** hence hardly anyone on here has bought it - and those that have say it does not work!
Click to expand...
I spent around £800 on it IIRC and totally wasted that money, so just about the only thing I have to show for it is my opinion on the stuff :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Sea Change
Mini sandblaster for rust spots on keel?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
2K
Mister E
M
A
HELP! Trapper 300 Restoration - Seeking Blueprints for a Unique Family Yacht!
Replies
2
Views
268
Neeves
N

Share this page

Top