Ultrasonic antifouling

[jfm]

Is your reason for black just aesthetic?
I actually like navy.

Maybe your reason is that black doesnt reflect the light.
We had an interesting effect last season.
We are currently on an end of a run of (UK style) pontoons and the lower morning sun covers the whole of the starboard side.
The port side is obscured to a degree by the alongside pontoon finger.
During the height of the growth last season the port side had significantly more growth than the starboard side which had the full benefit of the low morning sun.
This leads me to think (in laymans terms of course) that the foulong prefers darker areas.
In fact I met someone earlier last season who recommended hanging plastic bags full of water so that the sun's light would difuse under the boat.
Woffling a bit here but I think that there's a case fo lighter coloured A/F paint - white for example.
Anyway, I chose navy cos I like the colour.

Be interested to hear why you like black.

My preference for black is 90% cos I like the colour. It's perhaps a med trend because black is the biggest colour in med whereas it's blue in UK. And I have done the current boat in complete no-blue colour scheme; black canvas and fender socks etc. so yes, it's aesthetics, and each to their own

The other 10% is that some boaters/captians say in bars that black is better as its darkness inhibits weed growth. I'm very sceptical of this because most such comments are guesses and there is no scientific comparison agianst say white. And indeed your experience suggests the opposite

I suppose that there are many orgnaisms that can grow on a boat hull and perhaps some like light and others dont. So maybe the black/white choice merely affects the species you get! I dont think there is much difference in light levels between black and dark blue anyway

Anyway, I hope the M66 goes some way to helping with your SCM fouling problems. It'll be interesting to see. In a year's time we'll have some good data - M66 in the challenging conditions of SCM and my usaf results. We'll be able to write an article for PBO

 

[AndieMac]

MDL intalled similar deterrents and found a solution, a recoding of sea-gull alarm calls played back frequently over speakers, I am sure it worked, until a few local boaters complained about the noise!

We tried this system years ago, and it does work initially. Can't remember the exact time frame, maybe a couple of months, maximum, and the birds were back snuggling up next to the speakers!!!

 

[danfoley]

I really like this idea....but would prefer to see an independant PBO type test before shelling out hard earned cash...

MBY tested the product in February 2010 issue, there's a link to the article from the Ultrasonic site http://www.ultrasonic-antifouling.com/

 

[woodie1000]

My preference for black is 90% cos I like the colour. It's perhaps a med trend because black is the biggest colour in med whereas it's blue in UK. And I have done the current boat in complete no-blue colour scheme; black canvas and fender socks etc. so yes, it's aesthetics, and each to their own

The other 10% is that some boaters/captians say in bars that black is better as its darkness inhibits weed growth. I'm very sceptical of this because most such comments are guesses and there is no scientific comparison agianst say white. And indeed your experience suggests the opposite

I suppose that there are many orgnaisms that can grow on a boat hull and perhaps some like light and others dont. So maybe the black/white choice merely affects the species you get! I dont think there is much difference in light levels between black and dark blue anyway

Anyway, I hope the M66 goes some way to helping with your SCM fouling problems. It'll be interesting to see. In a year's time we'll have some good data - M66 in the challenging conditions of SCM and my usaf results. We'll be able to write an article for PBO

Thanks for trying to rid the boat of the seagulls jfm but it seems they like getting down to the vibrating beat of your usaf! I have visions of boogying seagulls on my foredeck! Maybe if it doesn't work keeping the barnacles off the props you could add it to a DJ set?

 

[Bassplayer]

There is a theory that seagulls wont poo on anything blue as it looks like the sea and even they don't want to poo in their dinner..... It has been tried on seafront buildings to some effect and owners of blue or dark colour cars seems to attract less than white ones. Thought occurs though, is a seagull that good a shot?!!!

 

[Nick_H]

MBY tested the product in February 2010 issue, there's a link to the article from the Ultrasonic site http://www.ultrasonic-antifouling.com/

Sorry Dan but I wouldn't call that a test, and I wouldn't draw the same conclusions from it. The only real comparison you can draw is that the USAF has not worked on the hull, as there is substantial fouling on the small control patch, whereas there is almost no fouling on the rest of the hull that still has antifoul paint. That's the only part of the test where the comparison is made under the same conditions. The results on the stern gear are subjective and unscientific, because the comparison is from Jon's memory of the fouling he suffered the previous year, and we all know that fouling varies from year to year, and with usage and location. It would also only take a short grounding of the props in some mud or sand to clean them up nicely. I'm not suggesting for a second that Jon tried to mislead anyone, only that the test was flawed.

 

[Hurricane]

There is a theory that seagulls wont poo on anything blue as it looks like the sea and even they don't want to poo in their dinner..... It has been tried on seafront buildings to some effect and owners of blue or dark colour cars seems to attract less than white ones. Thought occurs though, is a seagull that good a shot?!!!

They poo on my blue bimini cover!!! -?astards

This conversation reminds me of this ad http://www.bird****remover.co.uk/video.html

Never used the stuff but their advertising video always make me laugh.

Sorry the forum software changed the link - you will have to replace the **** with ?hit if you want to see the video

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your comments, The reason why I didnt give out any website details was because our UK site is under re-constrution as is our head quarters website in Austraila.

Our transducers are stainless steel for more than the reason of durabililty, they are very powerful and plastic would not be able to cope over a period of time - this is not a copy of any other system, there is a full time professor in Austrailia constantly working on R and D, we have new products for larger yachts coming very soon.

The 90 day guarantee is that within 90 days of fitting ASM the hull will be clean of any fouling! Not that it will work for 90 days. You can fit asm to a fouled hull and it will clean it, you dont need to start with a clean hull. Sorry if the site is mis leading - hence the overhaul!

As for the testimonials I'll speak to the Director of ASM and get an answer and post it here

asm, the issue, certainly in the Med, is not hull fouling but sterngear fouling. I don't know whether you've seen typical Med sterngear fouling but it mainly consists of crustacean type organisms which cling to any surface that cannot be covered with antifoul paint (on a high speed planing boat) such as props, shafts, rudders and bowthruster. This can lead to a significant loss of speed over a short time period. My boat could easily lose 5-6kts over 2-3 months during Spring and Summer.
To be blunt, a 90 day guarantee that the hull will be free of fouling is not worth a light. Hull fouling is not an issue in the Med as any decent antifoul paint will keep the hull of a Med based boat free of significant fouling for a whole season or more. On the other hand, if you guarantee that your system would keep sterngear free of fouling for 90 days, then a lot of people, me included, would be interested. Have you got any testimonials on preventing sterngear fouling, particularly in the Med?

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

The other 10% is that some boaters/captians say in bars that black is better as its darkness inhibits weed growth. I'm very sceptical of this because most such comments are guesses and there is no scientific comparison agianst say white. And indeed your experience suggests the opposite

This was certainly received wisdom in Majorca where black was definitely recommended by boatyards and black Titan Medium certainly kept my hull free of fouling for a season or more. But I agree with you, there doesn't seem to be any scientific evidence for this.

 

[Trundlebug]

This was certainly received wisdom in Majorca where black was definitely recommended by boatyards and black Titan Medium certainly kept my hull free of fouling for a season or more. But I agree with you, there doesn't seem to be any scientific evidence for this.

Maybe seagulls are different from other birds! I've found that all the blue cars I've owned have tended to get more bird fouling than other colours. I had always put it down to a theory a friend of mine came up with years ago, that the birds thought they were over the sea so dumped on blue cars, i.e. the opposite to the theory above!

Again, no scientific basis, just subjective judgement, but maybe on land, birds go for blue things and near the sea they go for non-blue things!

(Apologies for thread drift)

 

[jfm]

Sorry Dan but I wouldn't call that a test, and I wouldn't draw the same conclusions from it. The only real comparison you can draw is that the USAF has not worked on the hull, as there is substantial fouling on the small control patch, whereas there is almost no fouling on the rest of the hull that still has antifoul paint. That's the only part of the test where the comparison is made under the same conditions. The results on the stern gear are subjective and unscientific, because the comparison is from Jon's memory of the fouling he suffered the previous year, and we all know that fouling varies from year to year, and with usage and location. It would also only take a short grounding of the props in some mud or sand to clean them up nicely. I'm not suggesting for a second that Jon tried to mislead anyone, only that the test was flawed.

Exactly Nick. Dan, what the MBY test shows is that usaf actually did NOT work so far as the hull is concerned. As Nick says, the control patch was covered in weed and the rest of the hull wasn't so the ONLY conclusion to draw from that is that the af paint protected the hull, not the usaf. The usaf might have helped protect the props, but we didn't get hard data to prove that one way or the other. I'm amazed MBY has created the situation where MBY's name is used to endorse the product in the way it's been presented on ultrasonic-antifouling's website.

We also have the unresolved issue that both asm and usaf seem to be claiming claiming the same white/green yacht Why Knot is using their product. Prima facie, it appears one of them is lying and it would be good to get to the bottom of that. There might be a perfectly innocent explanation. At least, from MBY's pov, you'd want usaf's name to be cleared before being seen to endorse their product wouldn't you?

BTW, I very much want it to work, and am fitting usaf to my boat soon. I have already bought the Ultra 20 gear from ultrasonic-antifouling. (It's just a bit mucky due to Woodie100 )

 

[jfm]

Thanks for trying to rid the boat of the seagulls jfm but it seems they like getting down to the vibrating beat of your usaf! I have visions of boogying seagulls on my foredeck! Maybe if it doesn't work keeping the barnacles off the props you could add it to a DJ set?

Seriously A, there's something wierd. The seagulls, perhaps 50, just all sit on your foredeck. No other boat. I have been there the last few weekends and every time I look across to your boat with the binocs the foredeck is seagull-city. None on your neighbours. It is really wierd. Jenny has been doing a massive job (and prob not counting all the hours tbh) in clearing it. I went to it one day with her after if had been cleaned 100% the day before and I was just amazed at the amount of poop. She's pulling her hair out. If your boat was left for a week untouched there would be no foredeck GRP showing hardly, and I'm really not exaggerating. We're hoping it stops when you move berth, end of this month I think. If I can get you a pic tomorrow I will

 

[asm marine sonic uk]

Exactly Nick. Dan, what the MBY test shows is that usaf actually did NOT work so far as the hull is concerned. As Nick says, the control patch was covered in weed and the rest of the hull wasn't so the ONLY conclusion to draw from that is that the af paint protected the hull, not the usaf. The usaf might have helped protect the props, but we didn't get hard data to prove that one way or the other. I'm amazed MBY has created the situation where MBY's name is used to endorse the product in the way it's been presented on ultrasonic-antifouling's website.

We also have the unresolved issue that both asm and usaf seem to be claiming claiming the same white/green yacht Why Knot is using their product. Prima facie, it appears one of them is lying and it would be good to get to the bottom of that. There might be a perfectly innocent explanation. At least, from MBY's pov, you'd want usaf's name to be cleared before being seen to endorse their product wouldn't you?

BTW, I very much want it to work, and am fitting usaf to my boat soon. I have already bought the Ultra 20 gear from ultrasonic-antifouling. (It's just a bit mucky due to Woodie100 )

I spoke to ASM Australia today about the testimonial, They personally know the engineer who fitted ASM equipment to the above vessel.

On another note - ASM will keep the stern gear clear, we place a transducer over the top of each set of stern gear - tried and tested.

 

[Nick_H]

I spoke to ASM Australia today about the testimonial, They personally know the engineer who fitted ASM equipment to the above vessel.

On another note - ASM will keep the stern gear clear, we place a transducer over the top of each set of stern gear - tried and tested.

Well I suppose it's quite feasible that the yacht "Why Not" could have been in the Med at one time, and Australia at another, as lots of yachts travel around the world, but it seems highly unlikely they would have two different ultrasonic systems fitted. So, it would be interesting to know if you and Ultrasonic Antifouling UK both buy in the same system from Holland, but you encase it in stainless steel for some reason? If that's the case, then I guess it's not that unreasonable to both use the testimonial, although I wouldn't call it entirely transparent either.

 

[asm marine sonic uk]

Well I suppose it's quite feasible that the yacht "Why Not" could have been in the Med at one time, and Australia at another, as lots of yachts travel around the world, but it seems highly unlikely they would have two different ultrasonic systems fitted. So, it would be interesting to know if you and Ultrasonic Antifouling UK both buy in the same system from Holland, but you encase it in stainless steel for some reason? If that's the case, then I guess it's not that unreasonable to both use the testimonial, although I wouldn't call it entirely transparent either.

Our transducers are not produced in Holland, they are produced by ASM for ASM, ASM Transducers are more powerfull than others on the market.

 

[woodie1000]

Seriously A, there's something wierd. The seagulls, perhaps 50, just all sit on your foredeck. No other boat. I have been there the last few weekends and every time I look across to your boat with the binocs the foredeck is seagull-city. None on your neighbours. It is really wierd. Jenny has been doing a massive job (and prob not counting all the hours tbh) in clearing it. I went to it one day with her after if had been cleaned 100% the day before and I was just amazed at the amount of poop. She's pulling her hair out. If your boat was left for a week untouched there would be no foredeck GRP showing hardly, and I'm really not exaggerating. We're hoping it stops when you move berth, end of this month I think. If I can get you a pic tomorrow I will

It's very strange and I don't know what to recommend beyond what Jenny's done already (perhaps leaving a breadcrumb trail leading back to Mole Sud??). They must be quite downmarket seagulls to have followed us from there though.....

As you say, we'll hopefully be moving berth at the end of the month - We'll have to organise a top secret, cover of night berth move so the seagulls can't follow us!

We really appreciate Jenny's work, especially on this front so we'll think of something - perhaps one of these...

 

[bendyone]

What is the power of your units?

 

[jfm]

It's very strange and I don't know what to recommend beyond what Jenny's done already (perhaps leaving a breadcrumb trail leading back to Mole Sud??). They must be quite downmarket seagulls to have followed us from there though.....

As you say, we'll hopefully be moving berth at the end of the month - We'll have to organise a top secret, cover of night berth move so the seagulls can't follow us!

We really appreciate Jenny's work, especially on this front so we'll think of something - perhaps one of these...

Excellent idea Woodie. You give her one of those as a present. If you want to get your lights punched out

Strange development: I'm just looking at your boat thru binocs now, on a breezy sunny day (doing boat jobs here in T shirt). It has NO seagulls on it. :-?

 

[jfm]

I spoke to ASM Australia today about the testimonial, They personally know the engineer who fitted ASM equipment to the above vessel.

In which case Dan, Hugo, you ought to consider getting some statement from ultrasonic-antifouling, who are claiming endorsement from you on their website.

It's incredibly implausible (though theoretically possible) that the yacht Why Knot fitted both ASM and usaf at different times. ASM have confirmed their system was fitted to Why Knot. So, prima facie, ultrasonic-antifouling seem to be lying in saying their system was fitted. There may of course be an innocent explanation but usaf ought to come forward and say something

 

[Hugo_Andreae]

MBY test

Thought I'd better wade in and respond to Nick H and JFM's concerns about the MBY test. Granted it's not the perfect scientific test because finding three identical motor boats in an identical location with at least one owner who was prepared to strip off their existing antifouling and spend an entire season with no protection at all on their boat just to act as a control boat for the other two was beyond even MBY's reach.

The idea of a test patch was the next best alternative available to us in time for last season and of course Jon Mendez is both a tried and trusted contributor to MBY as well as a Sea School owner with first hand experience of fouling in the Solent. True, he doesn't have a full set of photos showing the precise level of fouling from previous years but if he says that last year he lost a couple of knots off the top speed of his school boat due to fouling on the sterngear but this year with USAF fitted he only lost half a knot, I'm inclined to believe him.

He also clearly states in his report that the control panel had a similar level of slime as the trim tabs (as shown in the photos) and precisely 11 barnacles. While this is not as good as the almost spotless antifouled section of the hull, it is still considerably better than he would normally get on an unprotected section. You only have to count how many barnacles can squeeze onto a single square inch of an unpainted trim tab to get a feel for this. So this doesn't prove that USAF doesn't work, it simply proves that it doesn't work as well as USAF and paint combined, but then neither Jon nor USAF claim it does. In fact Jon clearly says in his verdict that it slowed the growth of fouling (not stopped it) and that he would continue to antifoul his boat but only every other year. He also questions whether it would work on every boat in every location and promises to report back in future issues to give ongoing updates.

So in summary while it's not the perfect scientific test (antifouling tests rarely are due to the constantly changing conditions), I do believe it is both a useful and a valid first report. I will however look into USAF's website claims to make sure they are not abusing our findings. By the same token I look forward to hearing how JFM and others get on with their systems so that we can report back on a wider range of test conditions next year.

PBO's idea of using two old dinghies was an interesting concept that did seem to back up our findings on barnacles and weed but being static and without any sterngear, I didn't feel this was the right option for us. The abundance of sea squirts which did grow on the dinghies may well have washed off from a regularly used motorboat.

Hope this clarifies a few things

Hugo