|
|
20-01-2019, 14:12
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 810
|
Ultrasonic Antifouling
Ultrasonic antifouling looks like a great value for the price. It's expensive, but would not take long to pay for itself if the results are anything like the claims / reviews. Combined with a hard bottom paint, it just makes sense. Solar power is cheap these days, and from what I've read, intermittent operation is effective.... no need for 24/7
Anybody here using it? How well does it work in real life? I see a problem with cored boats. The transducers would need to be against the outer shell, which would mean "excavating" the core in a small area. The other concern is dampening of the foam.
I'd love to hear real world accounts from real people...
H.W.
|
|
|
20-01-2019, 18:33
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Olympia WA
Boat: 2008 Nordic Tug 37
Posts: 50
|
Re: Ultrasonic Antifouling
I don't know why this topic seems to generate strong claims of snake oil, but the technology has been in use in commercial trade for a long time. I have used the Australian product, CleanAHull, now on two of my boats with excellent results on the first. The second is too new to evaluate. I was warned to avoid the Chinese knockoffs but I only have personal experience with the one brand. My experience on my boat in my marina has been very positive. However, I run it 24/7, even while cruising and on the hook.
|
|
|
20-01-2019, 19:01
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 810
|
Re: Ultrasonic Antifouling
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterford
I don't know why this topic seems to generate strong claims of snake oil, but the technology has been in use in commercial trade for a long time. I have used the Australian product, CleanAHull, now on two of my boats with excellent results on the first. The second is too new to evaluate. I was warned to avoid the Chinese knockoffs but I only have personal experience with the one brand. My experience on my boat in my marina has been very positive. However, I run it 24/7, even while cruising and on the hook.
|
There are huge potential benefits obviously. I've been reading through the food fights over this from links people have posted here. It's pretty overwhelming, and there are convincing cases on both sides. There is a tendency to tar all products with the same brush, where the products clearly vary considerably. Some apparently use one frequency, some use an array of frequencies, some cycle at intervals, some apparently stay on 24/7. It would be nice to cut through the BS and identify what does work and what does not, and under what conditions and in what locations, with what bottom paint. There is too much confusion in the heat of combat with people for all intents and purposes calling each other liars to reach any solid conclusions. It's a large investment to make without confidence that it will work, but the cost of not making it if it does work is also quite substantial. Ironically some compare it to the lithium battery issue which they portray as settled........which is far from the case. Again that may be settled in the minds of sailors who never venture into remote areas, but for some of us it is far from settled. I personally would only consider lithium batteries if it was a case of extreme need to save weight. I don't want to be sitting in Suva trying to import replacement parts for a system that is still exotic in much of the world.
H.W.
|
|
|
20-01-2019, 20:36
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 293
|
Re: Ultrasonic Antifouling
Quote:
Originally Posted by owly
Ironically some compare it to the lithium battery issue which they portray as settled........which is far from the case.
|
Not to thread jack, but what isn't settled about the lithium issue?
AGM batteries weigh more, are much cheaper at initial purchase, are very inefficient charging the last 10% of top off, and can only use half their rated capacity. Li-Ion are about half the weight, more expensive to purchase up front, charge to 100% on a linear curve very fast, can use 80% of their capacity, and when factoring total charge cycles are cheaper if you can afford to amortize your costs over time.
|
|
|
21-01-2019, 04:17
|
#6
|
Hull Diver
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Under a boat, in a marina, in the San Francisco Bay
Posts: 5,428
|
Re: Ultrasonic Antifouling
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterford
I don't know why this topic seems to generate strong claims of snake oil...
|
Because if it performed as advertised, everybody would use it. But almost nobody does. And considering you're in Washington, your experience with it is likely not representative of how it would perform in a region where fouling is actually a real issue.
|
|
|
21-01-2019, 05:22
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Leavenworth, KS
Boat: 2011 Lagoon 450F
Posts: 1,147
|
Re: Ultrasonic Antifouling
If it works... would that mean that you would not need to use anti-fouling paint? or, perhaps, paint much less frequent? Interesting technology, for sure. I'm guessing people just don't know about it.
|
|
|
21-01-2019, 07:37
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 810
|
Re: Ultrasonic Antifouling
This obviously is not a black and white issue. Nothing is served by spreading negativity about it. It obviously does work in some cases, and not in others. Rather than condemn the products out of hand as snake oil, everybody would be better served if we tried to determine why they work on some boats and not others.
I've read through some of the other threads now, and found that they tend to degenerate into name calling..... certain offenders, one of whom has already jumped into this discussion have previously called those who relate positive experiences liars and shills, etc.... or things to that effect, and or implied the same. That kind of input is unwelcome and worse than useless. This isn't a legal case with winners and losers. This is situation where finding the ACTUAL TRUTH benefits everybody... unless they stand to profit from fouled hulls.
What differences are there between the success stories and stories of failure? That's what we need to focus on here. Are those differences based on manufacturer, installation, hull material, bottom coating used in conjunction with it???
There are many manufacturers in the market, and too many success stories to simply dismiss this as snake oil. Some of those success stories are from longtime members of this forum, and those kinds of statements and implications are deeply insulting to those members, branding them as liars every time they are repeated.
Let's keep this civil. We are all adults here.
H.W.
|
|
|
21-01-2019, 07:38
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 810
|
Re: Ultrasonic Antifouling
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thalas
Not to thread jack, but what isn't settled about the lithium issue?
AGM batteries weigh more, are much cheaper at initial purchase, are very inefficient charging the last 10% of top off, and can only use half their rated capacity. Li-Ion are about half the weight, more expensive to purchase up front, charge to 100% on a linear curve very fast, can use 80% of their capacity, and when factoring total charge cycles are cheaper if you can afford to amortize your costs over time.
|
Reread my post please.........
H.W.
|
|
|
21-01-2019, 08:31
|
#10
|
Hull Diver
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Under a boat, in a marina, in the San Francisco Bay
Posts: 5,428
|
Re: Ultrasonic Antifouling
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarlet
I'm guessing people just don't know about it.
|
Well, these products have only been on the market for 40 or 50 years so I guess they'd better start advertising them if they want to make their sales quotas.
|
|
|
21-01-2019, 09:24
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Boat: Dragonfly 1000 trimaran
Posts: 7,145
|
Re: Ultrasonic Antifouling
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterford
I don't know why this topic seems to generate strong claims of snake oil, but the technology has been in use in commercial trade for a long time. I have used the Australian product, CleanAHull, now on two of my boats with excellent results on the first. The second is too new to evaluate. I was warned to avoid the Chinese knockoffs but I only have personal experience with the one brand. My experience on my boat in my marina has been very positive. However, I run it 24/7, even while cruising and on the hook.
|
Same here. I could have written your post as my own.
__________________
The question is not, "Who will let me?"
The question is,"Who is going to stop me?"
Ayn Rand
|
|
|
21-01-2019, 09:26
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Boat: Dragonfly 1000 trimaran
Posts: 7,145
|
Re: Ultrasonic Antifouling
Quote:
Originally Posted by fstbttms
Because if it performed as advertised, everybody would use it. But almost nobody does. And considering you're in Washington, your experience with it is likely not representative of how it would perform in a region where fouling is actually a real issue.
|
If that was true, nobody up here would even use bottom paint !
__________________
The question is not, "Who will let me?"
The question is,"Who is going to stop me?"
Ayn Rand
|
|
|
21-01-2019, 09:36
|
#13
|
Hull Diver
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Under a boat, in a marina, in the San Francisco Bay
Posts: 5,428
|
Re: Ultrasonic Antifouling
Quote:
Originally Posted by senormechanico
If that was true, nobody up here would even use bottom paint !
|
I didn't say there was zero fouling in your neck of the woods. But maybe you don't have any experience with what real fouling looks like or how fast it happens, like here in California or even worse, in the southeast U.S. Until somebody outside of of the UK, northern Europe, the PNW or other region where in-water hull cleaning is needed infrequently (if at all) can provide evidence that these systems are effective, I will never change my opinion about them. Maybe they work for you in your particular situation and fouling conditions. That doesn't mean the products are effective anywhere else, where fouling is aggressive. Because it is most assuredly not in Washington.
|
|
|
21-01-2019, 11:33
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 810
|
Re: Ultrasonic Antifouling
Does this have to degenerate into a food fight every time the topic of ultrasonic antifouling comes up?
Again, it clearly DOES WORK FOR SOME BOATS IN SOME WATERS.....
There is no purpose in forcing these discussions to degenerate into a food fight except to discourage people from using available technology. This reminds me of the anti multihull discussions that went on endlessly.... One side constantly brought up the specter of capsize, while the other talked about how many monohulls were sitting upright on the bottom of the sea.
What Systems Work, and what systems do not work?
What bottom paint is needed to go with them?
What parts of the world are they effective in?
Personally, I would think that a system that works in the waters off Queensland should work virtually anywhere in the world........ tropical waters, fast growth....
H.W.
|
|
|
21-01-2019, 11:44
|
#15
|
Hull Diver
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Under a boat, in a marina, in the San Francisco Bay
Posts: 5,428
|
Re: Ultrasonic Antifouling
Jeezus- since when did simple differing opinions become a "food fight"?
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Advertise Here
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vendor Spotlight |
|
|
|
|