D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Sounds like you'd be firing blanks if you did?
Ultrasonic antifouling
- Thread starter zingaro
- Start date
Sounds like you'd be firing blanks if you did?
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
For me it would be simple. Hull growth is not a big issue in the Med if you use a good antifoul paint but barnacle growth on any non antifouled parts eg props, shafts, rudders, thrusters is a major issue which can easily lead to a loss of several knots in speed
FWIW, I spoke directly to Ultrasonic Antifouling by phone and I was not impressed by the response. The guy who answered the phone seemed to be running the operation from his house and wasn't able to tell me whether his product would be effective against Med barnacles despite claiming to have sold a number of units to Med based owners. Basically he sounded like a box seller
I believe that jfm is trying the blue/green unit so maybe we'll get some feedback soon
TradewindSailor
Well-Known Member
Curiosity has got the better of me.
Any updates on this from users?
Seems that the magazine report confirmed that the antifouling paint had to be good ...... therefore the benefit, if there is one, is that it stops the slim covering the antifouling paint and hence allows it to be more productive.
Any updates on this from users?
Seems that the magazine report confirmed that the antifouling paint had to be good ...... therefore the benefit, if there is one, is that it stops the slim covering the antifouling paint and hence allows it to be more productive.
bendyone
Well-Known Member
I am fitting a pair of US transducers to the boat next weekend. I take the view that while the is much talk from people without direct experience I fell the only real way is to try them out. If they work great if not I will know the answer 100%.
Marsupial
Well-Known Member
I posted this link on the PBO forum, its worth a look if you are considering ultrasonic antifouling.
www.bio21.bas.bg/ipp/gapbfiles/v-21/95_1-58_67.pdf
bear in mind this paper was written as a indication that ultra sound can be used to encourage the growth of algae. The author does make reference to ultra sound destroying algae but the power required to produce this effect (in his experiment) was way over 12 watts, the minimum power output of his rig was 100 watts. It will be interesting to see how this system pans out as a remedy for fouled stern gear.
bendyone
Well-Known Member
Units I'm fitting are about 50W each.
Marsupial
Well-Known Member
well all I can say is that according to that experimental data, destruction only occurred at power levels greater than 170 watts, below that the experiment observed growth. Perhaps you could let us all know how it goes, because if it works it will revolutionise antifouling.
KINGFISHER 9
Well-Known Member
Have a look in the latest PBO where they tested two makes of ultra-sound antifouling ... it was a very poor test ... both boats finished up completely covered in something called sea squirts which looked to be several inches long and had to be scraped off ... they considered the test successful ... I think as successful as their rather poor magazine!
bendyone
Well-Known Member
Fitted mine at the weekend see PBO forum for details.
asm marine sonic uk
New Member
ASM marine sonic is an international company with a product that has been proven the world over - we are son confident in our product that we give it a money back garrentee if it fails to work - we havent given any money back yet! Our ultra sonic antifouling system transducers are made from high quality stainless steel to withstand any abuse they may get in the bilges, chemical or physical. website details to follow
jfm
Well-Known Member
ASM I think your customers are going to ask for quite a bit more transparency from you guys. As you know there are various internet commentators that say u/s antifoul just doesn't work and is a con. I just googled your product name and found this link . It shows a yacht called "Why Knot" in Sydney that is apparently benefitting from u/s antifoul.
Now if you go to the www.ultrasonic-antifouling.com website, testimonials, you see the same yacht, except the caption says it is in Spain. Yet your product and ultra-sonic-antifouling's are not the same thing (theirs is plastic encased for a start, and you say yours is s/s). So the yacht Why Knot might have had your system or theirs, but not both.
So what's the truth? Please can you be really striaght with us about actual trials on boats that have YOUR system fitted
I have bought a usaf "Ultra 20" system btw and will be fitting it in a few weeks
Nick_H
Well-Known Member
Well spotted Sherlock! Seems strange also that the products are an AMS-10 with one transducer, and an AMS-20 with two transducers, sound familiar? Then in bold states one year performance warranty, and in small print states only 90 days, plus they either don't have a website or the guy above doesn't know the address???
jfm
Well-Known Member
Yup. BTW, the usaf ultra 10/20 are actually relabelled units, from the Netherlands I think, marketed as Shipsonic. URL for shipsonic is, unsurprisingly, www.ultrasonic-antifouling.eu At least usaf are honest about the relabelling if you ask them, and nothing wrong with that.
The ASM gear, our poster says, is s/s so it cannot be the same as shipsonic/usaf cos theirs are all plastic. Or perhaps it is the same stuff apart from the can that the vibrator is housed in? But why bother doing that bit of tinkering? Dunno, but in a market sector where there are already many cries of "snake oil" (at £2000 a can...) twud be helpful if these guys were all a bit more open and at least didn't both claim Why Knot is their customer.
Solitaire
Well-Known Member
Motala has it fitted. On the River Hamble, will be coming out the water in about a month - we will see what she is like then. As per the article in MBY.
jfm
Well-Known Member
Which make/model David?
I did read the earlier MBY article and wasn't wholly convinced u/s was working well on Motala. Do you get prop barnacles much in the Hamble and did u/s help (a lot or a little) on that score?
Hurricane
Well-Known Member
We kept our Sealine T51 (David knows her intimately - I believe) at Mercury just down the river from Motala's berth - our experience - hardly any barnacles - bit of weed - but nothing like Med growth.
Ex-SolentBoy
Well-Known Member
I am a user of the Blue Green system, and have been for the last year or so.
The current useage is as follows:-
Each transducer uses 0.6A when it fires
Each transducer fires for 30 seconds every 10 minutes.
Useage in 1 day is therefore 0.72Ah per transducer
Typical installation up to 45 feet is 4 transducers
Total per day for typical system 2.88Ah
There was a lengthy discussion on this subject very recently on http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227286
The current useage is as follows:-
Each transducer uses 0.6A when it fires
Each transducer fires for 30 seconds every 10 minutes.
Useage in 1 day is therefore 0.72Ah per transducer
Typical installation up to 45 feet is 4 transducers
Total per day for typical system 2.88Ah
There was a lengthy discussion on this subject very recently on http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227286
jfm
Well-Known Member
Thanks SB. Do you have any before/after pics to show its performance yet? Interesting that the firing pattern of BG is quite different from Shipsonic/usaf, which fire almost constantly, at something like 5 second intervals. I wonder if that will mean the two systems show different performance? I'll know on my own boat in a year or so.
Ex-SolentBoy
Well-Known Member
I have posted pictures on the other thread I mentioned. They show the fouling 6 months or so from new boat.
Nick_H
Well-Known Member
... but you antifouled the boat first, so it still doesn't tell us much. Most antifoul paints will still do a partial job after a year or two. The tests in the magazines have been entirely unscientific, so are largely meaningless, as they rely on the owner saying "well that's less fouling than I had last year with just the antifoul", which makes it subjective. The MBM (or was it MBY) test scraped a one foot square section of antifoul off, but then barely mentioned that test section in the results, although from the photo you could see it looked heavily fouled. They will report again on Motala when it comes out, but it's still got conventional antifoul on ?????
I suppose if they were scientists they wouldn't be writing for a magazine, so maybe they need some help in defining a meaningful test? As a minimum we need an unpainted hull with ultrasonic, an unpainted hull with no ultrasonic, and a hull painted with conventional antifoul, all moored in the same place. If the product worked it would be of immense interest to boaters, so worth the cost of a test like this.