Ultrasonic Anti-fouling

Anyone any experience of Ultrasonic Anti-fouling.

I have to start planning for when Play d'eau comes out*to have her bottom painted, and this looks*a good idea.

Comments?

Was a great idea in the '60's but never worked .

Perhaps today its a different concept but ,,,,,

Piers, This stuff is snake oil technology. Save your money and a great deal of aggravation. Think about it, if it really worked, every boat in your marina would have it. There is no science or any independent studies other than the sellers claims that show even a hint that it works. We have seen these installed in boats and they did absolutely nothing. Chuck

Hi All,

I sent the makers an email this morning, and had a reply within which looks interesting since a magazine I know well, appears to be about to endorse it following their tests.

------------

I asked the following question

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piers"
To: "David"
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: 20m + enquiry


Hi David,
Many thanks for the prompt reply. I find there is very little 'hard evidence' about ultrasonic antifouling, and when asking around, many say it's a 'snake oil' product.

Can I ask what reassurance you can give me?

Piers
--------------------

To which I had the following reply,

-----Original Message-----
From: David [mailto:david@ultrasonic-antifouling.com]
Sent: 30 November 2009 08:26
To: Piers
Subject: Re: 20m + enquiry

Hello again...
We have sold over 600 units since launching the product at the Southampton Boatshow in 2008, to destinations all around the world. We have also had test units out with the Marine publications, one of which has just completed and will be written up in the February edition (out in January).... this is the Motorboats and Yachting test and it is a totally convincing result, by their own admission.
The principle is not new, it has been in agricultural use for 20 years in the treatment of lakes, resevoirs and water treatment plants and simply adapted for marine use.... and we can most certainly reassure you that the system works extremely well.
I hope this helps, but if not, just wait until the independant press publications are available during the first part of next year.
With kind regards
David

----------------

Hmmm. I'll wait to read the results.

and had a reply within which looks interesting since a magazine I know well, appears to be about to endorse it following their tests.


Ever read a write up on ANY boat or product in a magazine , where the company advertises?


PM has yet to find much in hundreds of tests , that is not " it is already being changed".

Your money, so spend it any way you want, so how about this. Send me half the cost of this unit, I will send you a battery operated version that I guarantee will be as effective as the unit they will try to sell you. You will benefit since you will spend half as much to achieve the same end, and I promise I will put your money to good use. Drop me a PM and I will give you the info on where to send the funds. Chuck

Not to be confused with hull cleaning, but ultra sonic cleaning for many types of industiral equipment has been around for several decades. It is used for eyeglasses,* gears, hydraulic components etc. "Dip tanks" are the norm.* In the old days, Led Zeppelin harmonics worked for me with a real big amp.

It is interesting that a Google search only returns thousands of press releases and posts in yachting groups where people ask each other if they know anything about this.

What is really telling is that the US Navy, which spends a fortune on antifouling, is seeking research into new methods which do not use TBT or other unacceptable chemicals. They have outlined the areas in which they are soliciting research ideas and believe it or not, ultrasonic or acoustic antifouling is not among the areas of interest.

OK OK OK! Message received loud and clear. Research complete - it's a no to ultrasonics! Thanks for all the definite feedback.

Now, where's my brush, overalls, pressure washer, goggles......

Piers:

Although I admit to being a little skeptical, I'll also admit to being interested! When more is known about the product (cost, does it really work, etc) please keep us posted.

Walt** (It wasn't all that long ago that most thought we would sail over the edge.)

I am with Walt. If this did work it would be an excellent alternative to bottom jobs. I suggest we all encourAge Piers to give this a try. In the meanwhile maybe Chuck could list his 12 volt system under Classified and donate the proceeds to Piers for a 6 month haulout to inspect??

By the way,
I looked at the website and read the favorable reviews. How
much does this system cost in US dollars?

It's a scam. They use false, misleading or premature testimonials to sell you scientifically unproven, expensive devices, that will ultimately NOT protect your hull, and will end up costing you a lot more.

I know this because I was involved with a distributor. The photographs I've seen... of barnacles, weed and worms... you have no idea how that plays on my conscience. Don't fall for it.

Had a chat to a ultrasonic distributor at our recent boat show.
He said that you still had to use antifouling paint but claimed it will last longer! When I pointed out that the paint will still wear just as quickly and that he had just negated any economic benefit, he was stumped.
Cheers,

RickB said:

It is interesting that a Google search only returns thousands of press releases and posts in yachting groups where people ask each other if they know anything about this.

What is really telling is that the US Navy, which spends a fortune on antifouling, is seeking research into new methods which do not use TBT or other unacceptable chemicals. They have outlined the areas in which they are soliciting research ideas and believe it or not, ultrasonic or acoustic antifouling is not among the areas of interest.

Click to expand...

Fleming Yachts has the Ultra sonic as an option - so I think that the technology has been proven right...

Greetings,
I suspect this falls into the same category as Algex magnetic fuel conditioners and likewise apparatae. Yup, MILLIONS of satisfied users according to the manufacturer. Even if I got one of these systems FREE, I wouldn't install one.

Searios said:

Fleming Yachts has the Ultra sonic as an option - so I think that the technology has been proven right...

Click to expand...

Since there seems to be two threads on this subject, i will repost my response here too...

Just because a manufacturer, no matter who they are, offers an "option" for there boats, isn't a positive reinforcement that the product works. It means the builder has something else to offer that you pay for. They claim "testing" but no indication of what the testing was. On any boat, especially a power vessel, if the boat is constantly on the move the bottom stays relatively clean. I have seen the ultrasonic units in REAL LIFE use since they were first introduced to the market several years ago and they do absolutely nothing to prevent fouling and depending on these units as a sole source of antifouling will actually make the situation worse since nothing is protecting the bottom. Adding them to a boat with antifouling paint and not getting any fouling just means the paint is working. I suspect the Fleming still comes with bottom paint. I might add that I have been in the marine service industry for 40 years. Chuck

RTF and Chuck, I'm with you. A lot of boat builders offer AlgeX as an option and magnets in your fuel system do nothing. I bought into this scam back in the seventies. We sold a few and then had to refund the money when they didn't work.

If ya really need to know before everybody in your marina has the system go to BoatDesign.net and see 2 threads on this. One has 129 posts.

And if this stuff/system did work there'd be perhaps nothing growing or alive within several miles of every marina in existence.

manyboats said:

If ya really need to know before everybody in your marina has the system go to BoatDesign.net and see 2 threads on this. One has 129 posts.

And if this stuff/system did work there'd be perhaps nothing growing or alive within several miles of every marina in existence.

Click to expand...

There are lots of threads on that forum so finding the ones your referring to is a bit difficult. Chuck

I agree that the case has not been proven, I guess it's a case that is difficult to prove as there are so many variables that cannot be controlled or checked.

If it was a regular anti fouling coat then it could easily be tested by intentionally leaving out a patch (not coating a small area)and then compare it to the coated area. But this is not possible with the ultrasound systems since they cannot be restricted to some areas only.

Well - thinking about it - it can be tested by installing the system on a catamaran type boat where the system is only installed on one of the pontoons.

I don't believe in the Alge theory either, but the theory behind the ultrasound makes sense to me.

Capn Chuck,

Only took me about a minute to pop over there and search "Ultrasonic Antifouling" and the 2 threads I referred to showed up.

I think they covered everything imaginable.

HopCar said:

RTF and Chuck, I'm with you. A lot of boat builders offer AlgeX as an option and magnets in your fuel system do nothing. I bought into this scam back in the seventies. We sold a few and then had to refund the money when they didn't work.

Click to expand...

Maybe. My own experience with a De-bug unit was on a Sabb in a sailboat. The Sabb only drew as much fuel as was burned - no return line to the tank. After a few years, the Racor was collecting black gunk in the bowl causing all kinds of problems. I installed the De-bug, did nothing else and the problem went away.

And there is some research on the effect of magnetic fields on bacteria. Certainly some bacteria that contain ferrites are magnetic, although I have no idea if these bacteria can feed on hydrocarbons and cause problems in fuel tanks. Here is a link to a company selling such devices, with the study they funded being published in a the journal Biofouling in 1999. Is it good science? Beats me, although a University did conduct the study, and it was published in a real journal, meaning it was peer reviewed. Purafiner, Diesel Fuel Protection

So, while I understand the skepticism, my personal experience doesn't agree and the idea that magnetic fields disrupt the biology of bacteria and fungi/molds isn't false.

Delfin said:

So, while I understand the skepticism, my personal experience doesn't agree and the idea that magnetic fields disrupt the biology of bacteria and fungi/molds isn't false.

Click to expand...

At considerable risk to my own reputation...or should I say what's left of it...I agree with the above statement! No need to inundate this thread with numerous claims of witchcraft, I've heard it all before. My experience with magnetic fields and fuel, although not exactly what Delfin has experienced, is strikingly similar. And that's all I have to say about that!

The last time I spoke to a rep trying to flog ultrasonic antifoul at a boat show, he backed away from the claim that the device will prevent growth and claimed that " it will make your antifouling last longer..."

If it worked it would be OEM on all new boats..

high frequency sound waves can liquify glues and other materials as well causing fractureing. Dosen't sound like a good thing to expose your bottom to if you ask me. but its your bottom

here is a few tests:

Testing Ultrasonic Antifouling | Sail Magazine

http://content.yudu.com/A1lm9o/Ultr...nic-antifouling.com/product_of_the_month.html

page 2/3.

http://content.yudu.com/A1qwi5/Ultr...0623077377-3224054135606084560K285598&templat

page 2/3

http://www.sailingmates.com/ecoantifoul2.htm

Searios said:

here is a few tests:

Testing Ultrasonic Antifouling | Sail Magazine

UltrasonicTT

page 2/3.

Ultrasonic

page 2/3

Untitled Document

Click to expand...

These tests crack me up. They all put fresh bottom paint on the boats and then attribute the lack of growth to some extent on the ultrasonic instead of the bottom paint. None of this, in my mind is an indicator of whether this works and is worth the money. But my offer to sell my system that runs off a 9 volt battery for half the price of the ultrasonic still stands for anyone. Chuck

This is from another forum, where the discussion is also going on, there are several other universty studies:

Her is a study extract, not exactly sure what the verdict is:
""
Inhibition of barnacle cyprid settlement using low frequency and intensity ultrasound.
Guo S, Lee HP, Teo SL, Khoo BC.
Source
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 117576. gsf830@hotmail.com
Abstract
Low frequency, low intensity ultrasound was demonstrated as an effective inhibitor of barnacle cyprid settlement. When the same substratum vibration amplitude (10.05 nm) and acoustic pressure (5 kPa) were applied, ultrasound at a frequency of 23 kHz significantly reduced cyprid settlement. The mechanism appeared to differ from the ultrasonic cavitation induced inhibition previously reported as no increased mortality was observed, and no change in the exploratory behaviour of cyprids was observed when they were exposed to this continuous ultrasonic irradiation regime. The application of ultrasound treatment in an intermittent mode of '5 min on and 20 min off' at 20-25 kHz and at the low intensity of 5 kPa produced the same effect as the continuous application of 23 kHz. This energy efficient approach to the use of low frequency, low intensity ultrasound may present a promising and efficient strategy regarding irradiation treatment for antifouling applications.
PMID: 22296259 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
The following toggler user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control""

Searios said:

This is from another forum, where the discussion is also going on, there are several other universty studies:

Inhibition of barnacle cyprid settlement using low frequency and intensity ultrasound.

Low frequency, low intensity ultrasound was demonstrated as an effective inhibitor of barnacle cyprid settlement. This energy efficient approach to the use of low frequency, low intensity ultrasound may present a promising and efficient strategy regarding irradiation treatment for antifouling applications.

Click to expand...

If we're still talking about vibrational frequencies sufficient enough in strength to disturb the cyprid settlement of barnacles, I'd like to see the laboratory comparison between the above vs. the frequency of Lawrence Welk's Disco Freakout Album broadcast at the same strength.