Actually, the article told me that the boat was painted with traditional anti foul paint
in addition to the ultrasound device.
Coupled with the author's statement that he "thought" the fouling was less than it would have been without the device tells me everything I need to know about it.
Particularly when he compared the current
results with previous results using only a completely different paint
from a different manufacturer in a different location over a different period of time.
Actually the article pissed me off in just how poor of a controlled experiment
it was and procedures it used, while making the attempt to pass these updates off as "data" and "interim conclusions".
Both the author and the magazine should know better and be ashamed of themselves.
A 404 error would have been more informative and useful.