Ultrasonic Antifouling Info

[muskoka]

One of my pals dives down and bags his props using heavy-duty bin liners. It takes very little time to do that.

I'm not sure how the ultrasonic might work on your running gear. It relies on a direct connection to the hull which it uses as a membrane (like a drum skin) to transmit the ultrasonics. Your running gear is isolated from that by bushings etc. There might be a sounder you can attach to the shaft (I've seen this for stern drives), or perhaps the transducers would work if mounted close enough to the running gear.

People here are having success with ultrasonics, but it still requires a 'belts & suspenders' approach which includes ultrasonic, good antifoul and bottom cleaning. And what works here might not work where you are.

[muskoka]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

The fact that a few countries have chosen not to ratify the ban doesn't mean the ban isn't in place. The shipping industry abides by it because most of the nations they travel to require that they do.

BTW- China is a signatory to the ban, so it seems unlikely, Muskoka, that anybody is using tin-based anti fouling paint in Hong Kong. I suspect that you merely assume that that commercial shipping is using something other than copper paint.

I didn't say they were using tin based paint - you did.

I said that I am not allowed to use the commercial stuff on my yacht. I also stated that the yachties who do use it (illegally) have no problem with barnacles. I don't know what they're using, I simply know it's nasty & effective.

Also, signing a treaty is easy. Enforcing it is hard. I've lived in Asia for 20 years and most of these 'bans' are window dressing. Outside of Hong Kong & Singapore occupational health & safety, and environmentalism, simply do not exist.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by muskoka

I didn't say they were using tin based paint - you did.

I said that I am not allowed to use the commercial stuff on my yacht. I also stated that the yachties who do use it (illegally) have no problem with barnacles. I don't know what they're using, I simply know it's nasty & effective.

Also, signing a treaty is easy. Enforcing it is hard. I've lived in Asia for 20 years and most of these 'bans' are window dressing. Outside of Hong Kong & Singapore occupational health & safety, and environmentalism, simply do not exist.

If it isn't tin, then it's copper. And if it's copper, it's the same stuff you use. There ain't no magic bullets.

[spraygun]

The government uses PPG Amercoat.Not the nasty stuff.

[realem]

I have had pretty good success with Ultasonics from CleanAboat. It is not a complete solution but it has extended my bottom paint and running gear. Simple installation with an ROI on the bottom paint in 2 years

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by realem

I have had pretty good success with Ultasonics from CleanAboat. It is not a complete solution but it has extended my bottom paint and running gear. Simple installation with an ROI on the bottom paint in 2 years

You've been on the forum for two years, have made five posts in that time and every single one of them has been to pimp this particular ultrasonic device.

You and gelana have a lot in common.

[Krogensailor]

This **** keeps piling up. Where's my shovel?

[muskoka]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

If it isn't tin, then it's copper. And if it's copper, it's the same stuff you use. There ain't no magic bullets.

I don't know what it is and neither do you. You're guessing. I only know it works and it's illegal for yachties to use in Hong Kong.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by muskoka

I don't know what it is and neither do you. You're guessing. I only know it works and it's illegal for yachties to use in Hong Kong.

I can narrow it down. There are only three metals commonly used as biocides in anti fouling paint. In descending order of toxicity- tributyltin, cuprous oxide and zinc omadine. There is no super-duper, magic nasty anti fouling paint that is only available to commercial shipping. Everybody is using some version of these three types. Nobody calls the latter two "nasty", so that leaves tin. Which China has banned. So either the government of your country is turning a blind eye to it or your information is erroneous.

[sctpc]

Originally Posted by muskoka

I didn't say they were using tin based paint - you did.

I said that I am not allowed to use the commercial stuff on my yacht. I also stated that the yachties who do use it (illegally) have no problem with barnacles. I don't know what they're using, I simply know it's nasty & effective.

Why not? im about to get pulled at a shipyard and they claim there chemist ill make a batch to suit my usage pattern and its commercial stuff, and as a side even with their commercial rates doing all the work it will only be double as if I did it and did not pay myself the workers do antifouling all day every day so why should I take ther job from them.

[Singleprop]

There is only one law in Hong Kong and China - and it overrules everything else : money.
So it doesn't matter if China (or Hong Kong) has banned tin - its all window dressing. You can get anything thats banned here - and cheap too.

Could be a copy product as well...which is very likely..especially if the local yard can make a special "batch" - or even more likely: claim that its a super duper special product and then demand extra money for the friendly service..

Fact is that in Hong Kong, we dont know what the yards put on our boats, unless we bought the product ourselves or know the manager.......could be tin, could be cayenne pepper, could be radioactive nuclear waste, or just regular anti foul...

We are about 30 years behind on environmental issues here........but still thinks that we are doing good.....

[muskoka]

Originally Posted by Singleprop

There is only one law in Hong Kong and China - and it overrules everything else : money.
So it doesn't matter if China (or Hong Kong) has banned tin - its all window dressing. You can get anything thats banned here - and cheap too.

Yup. People seem unable to understand that regardless of environmental "agreements" or "bans", there is zero enforcement and everything that is "banned" is readily available in Asia. Bans are a joke here.

[muskoka]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Which China has banned. So either the government of your country is turning a blind eye to it or your information is erroneous.

"China has banned" - go on, pull the other one. China bans stuff for political reasons and doesn't enforce the bans for domestic reasons. Which holds true for all of Asia. And probably most every country outside of Western Europe or North America.

[pwhitburn]

I was pleased to read one of KROGENSAILORS posts that I was a junior sailor which implied my opinion did not count. For the record I am almost 70 and have 45 years sailing experience.
I installed the 1st Jaycar kit almost 2 years ago and was not all that happy. 18 months ago I installed a 2nd Jaycar (ultrasonic) kit on my 40 ft yacht. 12 months ago I anti fouled the hull and am very impressed with the results. I have some slime but no shell growth. I feel confident that I will get 2 years before the next haul out. Like some others on this subject I don't feel its a complete solution as youstill have to change anodes etc. but if it halves my haul out costs I am happy. I get the benefit of much more efficient sailing as well.
In my opinion you need to start off with a clean well anti fouled hull as there is no way this system is going to make existing shell growth fall off.
I am not a regular contributor to this site but never cease to be amazed how many people are prepared to bag a product from their armchair with out giving it a go.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by pwhitburn

I am not a regular contributor to this site but never cease to be amazed how many people are prepared to bag a product from their armchair with out giving it a go.

In this case it could be because some have experience that the claims from the ultrasonic manufacturers are not accurate. For me the claims must be implausible based on relatively simple logic. Even if I believed that ultrasonic vibrations keep critters away from my boat I reason that the amount of vibration and power to get the level required would be so high that a working device would be impractical. Just thinking about enough energy to vibrate all underwater portions of a boat boggles the mind. Then the massive variability in hulls with widely different resonant frequencies means a universal product is highly improbable. Plus you have to believe that critters are somehow annoyed by the vibrations or they are killed or they cannot attach or any number of other implausible explanations that have no available scientific basis. Depth transducers vibrate with massive ultrasonic signals yet they routinely look exactly like the rest of the bottom.

In general, any product marketed with only testimonials, especially with a prominent money back guarantee, will (or should) invoke my suspicions as to the efficacy of the product.