Ultrasonic Antifouling

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I worked for a regional distributor and part of my job was to keep a close eye on competitors and international companies. That was the only job I've ever held in the marine/electronic/chemical industry.

I have heard of boats going in the water for months at a time with no bottom paint, at the recommendation of ultrasonic antifouling distributors. Extreme growth of crustaceans, algae and coral will damage a hull.

A major UK distributor (and other companies) started off by promoting their product as a complete alternative to antifouling. Then, when it didn't seem to be working, they changed their product claims and recommended that you still antifoul. Then, they tell you that one Transducer isn't enough - you'll need two, good sir, thank you, see you in six months.

I'm happy to wait and see how it goes for those other forum users. I'm not being paranoid when I say, don't trust everything you read on forums. It's far too easy to create an account and post false information... which you've been eager to point out about my post.

It was a harsh post but I feel morally obliged to alert potential buyers that they should do a lot of research before they buy this product.

Thanks for your time.

You're kidding? So some buyers were willing to fit this equipment and, on trust, not paint their hulls? I would say that's very naive. Even if the u/s product works, I would still only see it as an additional defence against fouling not the total answer

 

[Nick_H]

It's certainly true that USAF originally marketed it as a complete alternative to conventional antifoul, and then quickly changed their tune. I agree it's a bit naive to have trusted a product with such wild claims ("an end to antifouling forever"), if for no other reason than you could always have a power failure. On the other hand, if you antifoul the boat, you don't know whether the ultrasonic has really worked.

 

[MapisM]

It's certainly true that USAF originally marketed it as a complete alternative to conventional antifoul, and then quickly changed their tune.

Can't tell by heart if it was USAF, but I'm pretty sure to have seen some advertisements even claiming that it could also remove any existing fouling! Hardly surprising, anyway. There are claims for any kind of miracle, these days...

 

[MapisM]

I'm happy to wait and see how it goes for those other forum users. I'm not being paranoid when I say, don't trust everything you read on forums. It's far too easy to create an account and post false information... which you've been eager to point out about my post.

With all due respect, I can assure you that if you knew who is testing these products around here, you would perfectly understand why most of us would tend to trust more those reports than yours, AOTBE.

 

[nocks]

With all due respect, I can assure you that if you knew who is testing these products around here, you would perfectly understand why most of us would tend to trust more those reports than yours, AOTBE.

So has the product been tested?

 

[MapisM]

As we speak - see previous posts.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

It's certainly true that USAF originally marketed it as a complete alternative to conventional antifoul, and then quickly changed their tune. I agree it's a bit naive to have trusted a product with such wild claims ("an end to antifouling forever"), if for no other reason than you could always have a power failure. On the other hand, if you antifoul the boat, you don't know whether the ultrasonic has really worked.

I think you would know if u/s was working even with paint on the hull because you'd see less of a speed loss over a season and less growth on the hull when the boat was lifted. But for me the proof of the pudding is whether u/s keeps the sterngear cleaner, not so much the hull

 

[nocks]

whether u/s keeps the sterngear cleaner, not so much the hull

There's another performance claim that has changed over time. Initially it was marketed as a full hull+hardware protection... It makes you wonder how much the distributors actually know about what they're selling.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

There's another performance claim that has changed over time. Initially it was marketed as a full hull+hardware protection... It makes you wonder how much the distributors actually know about what they're selling.

You're saying it won't work on the sterngear???

 

[jfm]

So has the product been tested?

Hi Nocks, welcome to forum. Can you give us some more info on yourself please? Are you just a regular boater etc, like the rest of us, with no axes to grind here (ie you don't own a big antifoul paint factory or something!). On what evidence do you base your criticisms of ultrasonic?

I am testing u/sonic, (mine are "Ultra 20" by Ultrasonic Antifouling), along with some others on here. I have a completely open mind, and have blown the £1800 on the u/sonic just out of curiosity. In truth, I honestly don't expect it to work, but it is worth a try, and I'd like there to be a decent body of evidence about this stuff.

Two weeks ago my boat was lifted, cleaned, antifouled, and u/sonic was installed at the same time. To try and make my experiment as scientific as I can:
1. I have lots of pics of previous liftouts to compare with. Some posted on here
2. Boat will be on same berth with/without the u/sonic
3. I have painted three "control patches" on the hull. See pic below - grey paint. These have no antifoul, so will test how the u/sonic works
4. I mainly care about stern gear so BOTH my u/sonic vibrators are fitted above props, where red spots are in pic below
5. I fitted them carefully: electric sander to create a flat surface on inside of hull, all as per instructions
6. I have painted every second prop blade in Stoppani clear prop antifoul, as an additional little experiment. I'm not expecting any miracle results but it it worth a go. Stoppani is a big name in a/f paint and this product is a clear paint specifically for propellers

So, at end of this season I will have some results that I think should be reasonbly good. I plan to share these with MBY magazine (already in touch with Hugo on this) and here. If anyone has any thoughts on the experiment and how to improve it please say - all suggestions welcome, and no point telling me at end of season

Boat is in Mediterranean, by the way

Some pics below, taken 2 weeks ago in Cannes

Boat painted, with the three control patches. They are progressively further away from the u/sonic vibrators

Control patch close up

M77 paint - International's latest product (M66, the prior product, was fantastic so this ought to be a bit better)

Preparing the location for u/sonic vibrator, to make it flat

Vibrator installed (one of them; there are two)

Red spots show position of vibrators. I couldn't put them right above the props because the floor of the crew cabin is right on top of the prop tunnels, so no room. I think they are perfectly fine where I've put them though. Also, those are 4 new model Lumishore lights - slimmer design and a bit brighter than the previous ones! The best underwater lights in the world

Craning back in

 

[nocks]

Fantastic Looking forward to the results.

One last control would be another boat freshly antifouled in the same locality (not too close though). Then you have another thing to compare to.

 

[longjohnsilver]

Fantastic Looking forward to the results.

One last control would be another boat freshly antifouled in the same locality (not too close though). Then you have another thing to compare to.

Come on Nocks, do tell us more about your background. Do you still work in a marine related business?

And to jfm, will you be diving to take a look at what's happening to the hull/sterngear throughout the season? Look forward to hearing/seeing the results.

 

[nocks]

Can you give us some more info on yourself please? Are you just a regular boater etc, like the rest of us, with no axes to grind here (ie you don't own a big antifoul paint factory or something!). On what evidence do you base your criticisms of ultrasonic?

Come on Nocks, do tell us more about your background. Do you still work in a marine related business?

I already posted this:

I worked for a regional distributor and part of my job was to keep a close eye on competitors and international companies. That was the only job I've ever held in the marine/electronic/chemical industry.

 

[jfm]

One last control would be another boat freshly antifouled in the same locality (not too close though). Then you have another thing to compare to.

Yes we have that. I should have mentioned. Posters woodie100 and Nick h on this forum are in the same marina as me, with no u/sonic, and their boats were lifted and newly antifouled within a week of mine, about 2-3 weeks ago. They have different paint, so it's not a perfect control, but Woodie's at least has bare sterngear so we have a good control on that. Also, I have stacks of lift outs from previous years and my boat has been in the same berth and had same a/f paint (apart from the upgrade from M66 to M77) so that amounts to a form of control too

 

[Jonmendez]

Just for interest we have the small version of the Ultra sonic on our boat and lifted her last week and the lack of any slime growth or barnacles on the underside is great, the props, shafts and rudders are all spotless, around the waterline we have the standard slime / weed but since the boat has 18 month old anti-foul I am not surprised, what is good to see is that the control panel (with no anti-foul) just undercoat has a fair number of barnacles, so for us it seems to work. I expect MBY will do another article with pictures in the future.

 

[gjgm]

the boat has 18 month old anti-foul ... what is good to see is that the control panel (with no anti-foul) just undercoat has a fair number of barnacles, so for us it seems to work.

Doesnt that suggest the old A/f is working, more than anything else ?

 

[Nick_H]

what is good to see is that the control panel (with no anti-foul) just undercoat has a fair number of barnacles, so for us it seems to work.

Jon, surely that suggests that the ultrasonic is not working, but that the 18 month old antifoul is.

 

[jfm]

the control panel (with no anti-foul) just undercoat has a fair number of barnacles, so for us it seems to work.

I'm confused by the logic. That sounds like it ISN'T working :-?

 

[Jonmendez]

Mmmm what I was trying to say - obviously badly is that the control panel had barnacles on it the hull did not although it usually would and the stern gear is spotless, so compared to before we had the unit when we would have had a small number of barnacles on the hull and plenty on the stern gear is that it works for us. I should add that the boat has been in for eight months. Hope that is clearer! Jon

 

[jfm]

the control panel had barnacles on it the hull did not

Surely that means the paint kept the hull clean, not the u/sonic. The u/sonic failed on the hull. It's scientifically unsound Jon to say "the hull did not [have barnacles]although it usually would", when the control patch actually did have barnacles. I suggest the only conclusion to be drawn is that the a/f paint stopped the barnacles, not the u/sonic

No worries, because we can use a/f paint for hulls. What's interesting about your experiment is that u/sonic seems to work well on the sterngear, which is excellent news.

Mine have only been in water about 3 weeks, so too early to tell

Longjohnsilver, yes I'll dive and get pics off u/w camera, but not yet cos the water is too cold!