Ultrasonic Antifouling

[rsn48]

Okay its official, food fight. Some one here implied PNW (my case - coastal BC) doesn't have the same fouling problems as a 1000 miles south. This statement may be true but implies bigger and better growth down south. What I can say is that fouling was so bad, going two years was really pushing it, and the stuff was everywhere and long and barnacley in Horseshoe Bay in BC, really West Vancouver. Where I am in Comox is much better, in fact when I hauled my boat out for refit I couldn't believe what I saw, no growth. I talked to my refitter and he said the marinas in Comox have combo water, ocean and fresh water, he feels this helps. In Horseshoe Bay, the constant moving of the BC ferry props really oxygenated the water and we had the healthiest anything living there in the water. In fact there might have been a cure for cancer in the growth I had on my boat in Horseshoe Bay.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by rsn48

...fouling was so bad, going two years was really pushing it...

Going two years between what? Bottom jobs? Hull cleanings?

[G-Force]

My ultrasonic installation has been a complete failure. It has not had any effect at all on growth on my boat. It has been running for 6 months and I have exactly the same growth I would have with out it over this period.

The boat is a solid Fibreglass 30 footer. It is located on Port Hacking in Sydney Australia most of the time. Growth here is a problem probably because it is a very healthy, unpolluted waterway.

I installed a dual transducer Hullsonic system. I followed the instillation instructions carefully. I also installed 2 x 100 watt solar panels, a separate 140amp battery and a good battery management system to run the system 24/7. The power supply and management system has worked well. According to the recorded data on the management App the battery has not been disconnected due to low power. So it has actually run the Hullsonic transducers 24/7. I can hear the transducers clicking away as the instructions say they should be.

The antifouling paint I use is a commercial grade and not cheep rubbish. You cant buy it over the counter in a chandlery or boat shop in my city. It is used by the local ferry service which has found it to be the best antifoul for this area over many years.

So I feel I have given it my best shot and it has really been an expensive failure and disappointment. I have tried to fathom why it has failed so badly.

My boat has a fibreglass internal liner which is properly glassed in with tabbing connecting it to the hull in all accessible areas. This does create a network of rigid framing that is not helpful. It is mentioned as something that will cause issues, in the instillation instructions, because it hinders the sonic signal flowing through the hull. This structure is really common in a lot of yachts though.

The locations of the transducers are in the most unobstructed areas I could find. The divers who scrubbed the boat recently remarked that the growth was even all over the boat, which indicates the transducers didn't even have an effect in the area immediately surrounding them. The transducers are well connected with the kit and instructions provided and glued within the required temperature range.

I really wished it had helped as it is becoming very expensive to haul out a boat in Sydney these days.. especially since it is now looking like I will be doing it on a 6 to 9 month cycle.

If you fit one of these systems I hope you have better luck than I did.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by G-Force

My ultrasonic installation has been a complete failure. It has not had any effect at all on growth on my boat. It has been running for 6 months and I have exactly the same growth I would have with out it over this period.

The boat is a solid Fibreglass 30 footer. It is located on Port Hacking in Sydney Australia most of the time. Growth here is a problem probably because it is a very healthy, unpolluted waterway.

I installed a dual transducer Hullsonic system. I followed the instillation instructions carefully. I also installed 2 x 100 watt solar panels, a separate 140amp battery and a good battery management system to run the system 24/7. The power supply and management system has worked well. According to the recorded data on the management App the battery has not been disconnected due to low power. So it has actually run the Hullsonic transducers 24/7. I can hear the transducers clicking away as the instructions say they should be.

The antifouling paint I use is a commercial grade and not cheep rubbish. You cant buy it over the counter in a chandlery or boat shop in my city. It is used by the local ferry service which has found it to be the best antifoul for this area over many years.

So I feel I have given it my best shot and it has really been an expensive failure and disappointment. I have tried to fathom why it has failed so badly.

My boat has a fibreglass internal liner which is properly glassed in with tabbing connecting it to the hull in all accessible areas. This does create a network of rigid framing that is not helpful. It is mentioned as something that will cause issues, in the instillation instructions, because it hinders the sonic signal flowing through the hull. This structure is really common in a lot of yachts though.

The locations of the transducers are in the most unobstructed areas I could find. The divers who scrubbed the boat recently remarked that the growth was even all over the boat, which indicates the transducers didn't even have an effect in the area immediately surrounding them. The transducers are well connected with the kit and instructions provided and glued within the required temperature range.

I really wished it had helped as it is becoming very expensive to haul out a boat in Sydney these days.. especially since it is now looking like I will be doing it on a 6 to 9 month cycle.

If you fit one of these systems I hope you have better luck than I did.

Hi and welcome. Your results mimic those of a friend a few years ago, though not in the hacking but the nearby Georges River.

[G-Force]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

Hi and welcome. Your results mimic those of a friend a few years ago, though not in the hacking but the nearby Georges River.

Thanks for the welcome Bob.. and that is very interesting.. I grew up on the Georges River and as you probably know even though its very close to the Hacking its a very different water way.. I'm starting to think I have really been had with this purchase.

[GordMay]

Greetings and welcome aboard the CF, G-Force.

Thanks for your detailed, and informative report.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by G-Force

My ultrasonic installation has been a complete failure.

Shocking, I tell you. SHOCKING! [emoji38]

Originally Posted by G-Force

I really wished it had helped as it is becoming very expensive to haul out a boat in Sydney these days.. especially since it is now looking like I will be doing it on a 6 to 9 month cycle.

Is in-water hull cleaning not a “thing” in Sydney? I would find that a little hard to believe.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by G-Force

I really wished it had helped as it is becoming very expensive to haul out a boat in Sydney these days.. especially since it is now looking like I will be doing it on a 6 to 9 month cycle.

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Is in-water hull cleaning not a “thing” in Sydney? I would find that a little hard to believe.

A quick Google search turns up at least half a dozen Sydney hull cleaning services on the first page of results alone. Why would you not avail yourself of one of these rather than haul the boat to clean the bottom?

[owly]

These kinds of results are discouraging............ I find it interesting that companies are able to continue to market a technology that seems to absolutely NOT work. Is this an outright fraud? or are there circumstances where ultrasonic DOES work? Unless the manufacturers address this, and discover why it may (presumably) work on some boats but not on others, it's a dead technology. The manufacturers should compensate customers at the very least for the purchase price.


This seems atypical for a fraud........ They manufacture, promote, and continue to sell a product that apparently simply does not work in many if not most cases as word spreads that their product does not work......... That makes little sense in the case of such a product where it's success or failure is pretty obvious. I can see this with devices intended to prevent lightening strikes for example...... but antifouling?

[owly]

Ask and you shall receive ;-) I've always been an innovator / inventor at heart, and over the years have built many useful things, either because they did not exist, or because I could not afford them.....usually because they did not exist.

In recent years, I've found that all I have to do is dream something up, and do a search and lo and behold, someone is manufacturing it.... or about to.


Talk about underwater hull cleaning of course brought me to the obvious... a sort of underwater unmanned vehicle for hull cleaning. The obvious challenge is to keep it on the hull and working............ Imagine an underwater "roomba" for example that you could simply put over the side every few months and would clean your hull before growth got out of control....... In a perfect world it would be a school of fish that followed your boat and ate the growth ;-)





In any case doing the usual search, I found
SeaRobotics Autonomous Hull Cleaning System

Not for yachts obviously, but it is interesting never the less.... fun stuff ;-)

[RaymondR]

Some of us look back on the days when we could use TBT with a great deal of nostalgia.

[sailormed]

Originally Posted by owly

These kinds of results are discouraging............ I find it interesting that companies are able to continue to market a technology that seems to absolutely NOT work. Is this an outright fraud? or are there circumstances where ultrasonic DOES work? Unless the manufacturers address this, and discover why it may (presumably) work on some boats but not on others, it's a dead technology. The manufacturers should compensate customers at the very least for the purchase price.


This seems atypical for a fraud........ They manufacture, promote, and continue to sell a product that apparently simply does not work in many if not most cases as word spreads that their product does not work......... That makes little sense in the case of such a product where it's success or failure is pretty obvious. I can see this with devices intended to prevent lightening strikes for example...... but antifouling?

My understanding of the technology is that it only works correctly with a metal hull. There seems to be a big difference in transmission of the ultrasonic waves in a steel hull or in a GF hull.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by sailormed

My understanding of the technology is that it only works correctly with a metal hull.

That's not what the manufacturers claim:


Steel, Aluminium, GRP, FRP, Carbon, Kevlar, even solid plastics and ABS materials can be protected from marine bio-fouling with Sonihull ECO anti-fouling systems.

https://eco.sonihull.com/leisure-boats/

Recommended for hull types: Aluminium, Carbon. Steel, GRP.

https://eco.sonihull.com/leisure-boats/

The system is effective on all GRP (Glass Reinforced Plastic), STEEL and ALUMINIUM hulls up to thickness of 70mm.

FAQs Archive - UltraSonic Antifouling LtdUltraSonic Antifouling Ltd

Hull Shield works on all boats that do not have wood within the hull layers.

https://www.hullshield.net/how-ultra...fouling-works/

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by sailormed

My understanding of the technology is that it only works correctly with a metal hull.

Originally Posted by fstbttms

That's not what the manufacturers claim ...

Indeed.

[CatNewBee]

It probably works great on the dry dock.

I don't think marine growth is that intelligent to hear your ultrasonic vibes and feels it should stay away because it doesn't like the tune you play. What would be the principle behind to repell marine flora and fauna with noise?