ultra sonic hull cleaner

jimisbell said:

but....if they work, you wouldnt come across one in your business.

Click to expand...

You believe that in 24 years and 30,000+ hull cleanings, I would never have occasion to come across an ultrasonic system?

jimisbell said:

Your comment seems to confirm that they work?

Click to expand...

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. But I will tell you this; I have a client who (besides being a well-known boat broker and sailor), manages several high-end race programs here on San Francisco Bay. A few years ago, two of the J/120s he manages decided to install ultrasonic systems. They took them out before an single race season had elapsed, that's how unimpressed with them the owners were.

Here's the bottom line (again): If they performed as advertised, every chandlery in the country would sell them. If they performed as advertised, the stock of all the major paint manufacturers would plummet. If they performed as advertised, I'd be out of a job. But none of that has happened. I wonder why?

fstbttms said:

You believe that in 24 years and 30,000+ hull cleanings, I would never have occasion to come across an ultrasonic system?




I don't know how you came to that conclusion. But I will tell you this; I have a client who (besides being a well-known boat broker and sailor), manages several high-end race programs here on San Francisco Bay. A few years ago, two of the J/120s he manages decided to install ultrasonic systems. They took them out before an single race season had elapsed, that's how unimpressed with them the owners were.

Here's the bottom line (again): If they performed as advertised, every chandlery in the country would sell them. If they performed as advertised, the stock of all the major paint manufacturers would plummet. If they performed as advertised, I'd be out of a job. But none of that has happened. I wonder why?

Click to expand...

If your bussines is cleaning hulls and these things work at their job, I would think it unlikely that you would come across one. Now, f they ddnt work,then maybe you would have them coming to you.

jimisbell said:

If your bussines is cleaning hulls and these things work at their job, I would think it unlikely that you would come across one. Now, f they ddnt work,then maybe you would have them coming to you.

Click to expand...

My business is the maintenance of anti fouling paint and has been for decades. In addition, I know most of the 100+ hull cleaners here. I don't do this work in a vacuum. If there were ultrasonic devices in use in the Bay Area, I would know about it. If they worked, I would have lost a client or six hundred to them. They sure as hell wouldn't be a secret.

I certainly won't argue with the SF diver's experience, and I have nothing to do with the boating industry, but they have certainly worked on my boat in my waters. Of course, we all are behind a veil of anonymity here and "truth" is to be gleaned from trends, not specific posts. I refer you to Nigel Calder's cautiously optimistic article on the subject: http://www.pyiinc.com/downloads/sonihull/Bad Vibes for Barnacles.pdf

Waterford said:

I certainly won't argue with the SF diver's experience, and I have nothing to do with the boating industry, but they have certainly worked on my boat in my waters. Of course, we all are behind a veil of anonymity here and "truth" is to be gleaned from trends, not specific posts. I refer you to Nigel Calder's cautiously optimistic article on the subject: http://www.pyiinc.com/downloads/sonihull/Bad%20Vibes%20for%20Barnacles.pdf

Click to expand...

when was that article written and when is the one year report due?

As to believing what someone in the business says, I usually dont. They are biased. Not dishonest, just biased.

I have been using the E Paint ZO and while the manufacturers say 3 years, I have been going 5+years in warm southern waters. Several "in the business" people told me that using ZO, a chemical used in dandruff shampoo, would not work. Well, it does.

But "In the business" people are terribly old fashioned and dont change very fast because they are afraid that if they grab a fad and it fails they will loose business. And that is a good business attitude to take, protect the customer. But it does not make for rapid innovation.

Oh, and while I have read several mildly optomistic reports on this I have read NO negative reports by anyone who has actually used one.

jimisbell said:

As to believing what someone in the business says, I usually dont.

Click to expand...

Right. Why lsten to the experts?

fstbttms said:

Right. Why lsten to the experts?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I didnt know you were an "expert" on the Ultra Sonic prevention systems. I thought you said you had never seen one? Which one are you an "expert" on, the two transducer or the 4 transducer unit?

jimisbell said:

Sorry, I didnt know you were an "expert" on the Ultra Sonic prevention systems.

Click to expand...

I never claimed to be an expert on ultrasonic systems. But by your own admission, you don't listen to them on any subject. As evidenced by your 5+ year old anti fouling paint. Customers who have no experience in the subject telling service providers what's what. Yeah, that's what we live for. ?

While I have heard of systems on large vessels that work...

I have to agree with fstbttms about the rarity of systems in use .....

and even more so the lack of marine professionals, publications, marinas, retail stores, captains, hull cleaners, commercial operators, and other experienced boaters commenting on their effectiveness or even talking about them in general.

Some units or someday they may become widespread...but it sure ain't today.

I don't use one and my bottom stays almost whistle clean for 7 months...then when I stop cruising, it loads up pretty fast. Like bottom paints, the effectiveness of some units may have little to do with their workings and more to do with other factors.

fstbttms said:

I never claimed to be an expert on ultrasonic systems. But by your own admission, you don't listen to them on any subject. As evidenced by your 5+ year old anti fouling paint. Customers who have no experience in the subject telling service providers what's what. Yeah, that's what we live for. ��

Click to expand...

I thought it was you that said,

" I have been in the hull cleaning biz for 22 years/30,000 service events and have never come across one."

Sorry if that was someone else using your name, I thought it was you.

My 5+ years on EPaint is factual observation on two different boats, a Gulfstar 36 and a BR 44 over 15 years. Not speculation on something I have "never come across."

The fact of a weekend boater not knowing about something tech doesn't surprise me....

An experienced marine professional not knowing about something in his or her field or related fields to me would be very strange.

I don"t know fstbttms personally, but after reading his responses on tech issues as well as political issues involving bottom paints, zinc's, environmental issues, etc...for many years ....I can only surmise he is a well read pro that keeps up in his field. Thus probably knows why ultrasonic cleaners are not common. I don"t clean bottoms and I know why.

To be fair though, in recent years the systems seem to be working better....the jury is still out on just how much. The last Passagemaker article gave them hope, but stated that they certainly don't replace good bottom paint just yet.

I am waiting for my marine engineer friend to email me and reeducate me on what ultrasonic systems for larger boats do work.

I think 50+ years of boating and several blue water crossings hardly makes me a "weekend boater" but, be that as it may, throughout this discussion I never said I knew the answer. All I protested was the offhand dismissal of the device by someone that stated he had "NEVER SEEN ONE" and his information was only hearsay ...........

Reread it all.... And think long and hard before you go on any more.....

psneeld said:

reread it all.... And think long and hard before you go on any more.....

Click to expand...

? ?

I was just watching a Utube video on the site Will Fix Boats (maybe We Fix Boats). He is a boat repair shop in Key West. He said he installed a Sonihull system in July and it was then February and the diver said they had not cleaned the hull and it was clean after 7 months in southern salt water. Just an FYI.

Comodave said:

I was just watching a Utube video on the site Will Fix Boats (maybe We Fix Boats). He is a boat repair shop in Key West. He said he installed a Sonihull system in July and it was then February and the diver said they had not cleaned the hull and it was clean after 7 months in southern salt water. Just an FYI.

Click to expand...

The guy was paid to install the ultrasonic system, so it's hardly an unbiased review. I'm just spitballin' here, but my guess is he'd like to install more of them.

You know what they say- If it sounds too good to be true etc. etc.

All people carry intrinsic bias. In science you spend much time designing your studies as to not be effected by bias. Your personal experience is what you remember and allow to influence your judgment and decisions. That is bias.
One poster cleans hulls for a living. A product comes along which could potentially be quite detrimental to his book of business.
Another poster blew boat bucks on a product. His posts should be viewed with that in mind.

From what I’ve read and heard ultrasonic antifouling works. Wouldn’t work on timber or cored hulls. May require additional units for running gear and running gear or balanced spade rudders is more difficult than hull. You still need to start with a clean hull and still need bottom paint. But it does decrease dive times. A look at the hull. Maybe a wipe if your slimocide isn’t effective, maybe clean parts of rudder or running gear. Maybe nothing. But likely dives are shorter and fewer. Still have to do zincs though.

It’s taken decades for people to start to understand double enders are not more seaworthy neither are full keels. The NA boating public is very,very slow to accept change. Saying no change has occurred speaks more to public attitudes in my view.

I am not going to put ultrasound on my boat. Not due to resistance to the tech but rather I have other priorities at present. If I was building a new metal hull I probably would.

Hippocampus said:

From what I’ve read and heard ultrasonic antifouling works.

Click to expand...

If it performed as advertised, it wouldn't be the fringe anti fouling technology that it is now and has been for decades. It would be widely available and in common use. But it is neither of those things.

rwidman said:

You can't trust "testimonials" any more than you can trust advice on this forum. The only way you're going to find out if this system works for you is to install it on your own boat.


Wait five years and they will either be on most people's boats or the company will have gone out of business. At that point, you can make a decision.

Click to expand...

This post written in 2016 stands out. It is now 7 years later, how many units installed since then. A fare comment that should now have answered the question.

So you have something that costs a couple K for a small cruising boat. You have an existing is hit list to get through and limited boat bucks. There’s an existing way to handle this you’re confident in and you know those costs. A very hard sell to a public resistant to change.
Would note commercial ships and operators are using this technology. They’re all about the money honey. Venders include
Cathwell
CleanAHull
Shipsonic
Sonihull
Y-sonic
YGZ
Ultraguard
Among others
Companies been around for years.

What’s posted here (including myself ) is all hearsay. People didn’t accept the world is round for quite awhile. Religious leaders forcefully insisted the earth not the sun was the center of our solar system.
The science says there’s four ways to employ ultrasound to structures and vessels in salt water. Only one (the lowest energy) is practical for boats. That’s definitely the option under 10m. Questions as to whether it’s worth installing is case specific. Decision point may change depending upon effectiveness of available bottom paint (I still miss tin), it’s cost and durability.

Personally, I no longer own a boat.
However, I personally know Waterford and can vouch for his experience with his ultrasonic hull "cleaning" setup. He is a good and honest guy! On his boat, with his type of bottom paint, in our area, it works fairly well! He takes photos during haulout that clearly show the results.

Hippo's comments are good ones, and describe the situation fairly well. Ultrasonics do not eliminate using bottom paint nor the need for occasional underwater (or haulout) maintenance (eg. spot cleanings, desliming, changing anodes, etc.).
Now, with all that being said, if I still owned my boat, I probably would not install one. Why? Other priorities to spend my limited money on, and what I was doing worked fairly well for the time, effort, and money invested. If money was easily available, I would install one. I trust what Waterford is saying!!

Early adapters are an interesting crowd. They adapt a new technology (making boats out of grp, using AIS, having square head mainsails, whatever ) for various reasons.
Either it’s entirely emotional. The thing to do.
It makes overwhelmingly financial sense.
It is overwhelming a better solution to a problem.



They are still outliers hence called early adapters. Late adapters finally adapt when
The government forces them too. (Think naturally aspirated engines beyond very small sizes)
The older tech is no longer available or too hard to maintain. (Think cotton sails).
Peer pressure
Public opinion.

The last persons opinion I would value on the decision whether to put in ultrasound antifouling is FB or anyone with a strong financial interest either plus or minus. No insult to him but he has skin in the game for adaptation to not succeed should it be cost effective. Just like I don’t listen to car salesmen exhorting the virtues of the car they’re trying to sell me. Once you’re an early adapter there’s more risk as a substantial track record of the technology in your application doesn’t exist. Many things can cause this.
It doesn’t work.
Herd mentality is against it.
It works but is priced wrong.
It works but service life is short.


Gyros and Magnus effect devices have been around for ever. It’s taken decades for a modest level of general acceptance. People still argue about where AIS is worth it. For an early adapter one needs to parse through available evidence not hearsay. A difficult task. Perhaps FBs can give excellent advice based on his experience with different brands of bottom paint. But to say there’s no general experience with ultrasound for pleasure boats is to say there’s no general experience with ultrasonic antifouling on small pleasure boats. Nothing more or less. Available experience on a brief search is all positive with little negative but that is biased as well. Maybe they are doing a better job than copper coat. Given this f I was contemplating ultrasonic I’d learn the science best I could , speak directly to users, look at warranties in short do the due diligence best I could. I would not be swayed by those who have skin in the game on either side.

The issue for me is reliance on anecdotal testimonials. If someone like Practical Sailor were to come along and do a blind or twin study - maybe even catamarans where one hull has the secret sauce, the other doesn't, I'd be extremely interested. Call me cynical, but over the years, testimonial evidence has been pretty weak. Need I remind anyone of rhe claims for Algae-X?

That said, I have seen some support for ultrasonic from credible sources. But no idea what the limits might be re: fiberglass hull. Technology and claims have been around for a long time. Curious the research hasn't really advanced past where it was in 2016 when this thread started.

Peter

Hippocampus said:

The last persons opinion I would value on the decision whether to put in ultrasound antifouling is FB.

Click to expand...

I don't care if anybody (including my customers) installs an ultrasonic system or not. Actually, I'd welcome it. I'd love the opportunity to document its effectiveness (or lack thereof.) If I were selling these things and wanted to prove that they worked, I'd use one boat with the system installed and a similar boat in the same marina without it. Then just simply record the state of fouling on both over a matter of months. Why is it you don't find any of the manufacturers doing this simple comparison test?

BTW- I have been a professional hull diver for over 28 years and my little company has provided more than 42,000 in-water hull cleanings during that time. To my certain knowledge not one of the many thousands of boats we have serviced has ever had an ultrasonic system installed. The bottom line is that almost nobody uses ultrasonic anti fouling systems, and there's a reason for that.

But a lot of people vote with their wallets. If the evidence - even sparse - was all about how well ultrasonic systems worked, they'd have much wider acceptance. I'd have one - they cost less than a single bottom job, good for only 1-2 years. The evidence, mostly testimonials, is pretty mixed. Some say they work, some say not. And might be highly dependent on the use, installation, vendor, area, hull construction, etc. So now the going in price of 1/2 a bottom job seems a little like a gamble. If a vendor would sell me one with an airtight money back guarantee, I'll try one. They won't, and that makes me hesitate quite a bit....

There are a lot of independent testing labs of all manner of expertise that could devise and execute test regimes. Similar to UL testing. Probably not cheap, but a lot of upside.

Peter

I thought Sonihull was a performance enhancer and that is why freighters use them. It keeps the bottom free of items that create drag.
I may have missed it but does it eliminate the need for ever bottom painting again?
2020 Passagemaker review starts off with it does not replace bottom painting, it does extend the cycle and keeps hull cleaner

SteveK said:

...does it eliminate the need for ever bottom painting again?

Click to expand...

No, it does not. Nor does it eliminate the need for in-water hull cleaning, in places where that is typcally necessary.

Oh, and BTW-

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/ultra...YNAn-BQWcqL83gFwLbwIiHG0HM3LvHClTnzMPjEaBGdBE

fstbttms said:

Oh, and BTW-

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/ultra...YNAn-BQWcqL83gFwLbwIiHG0HM3LvHClTnzMPjEaBGdBE

Click to expand...

Suggested reading, thanks for link