Sonic Anti-foul Devices

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by TMT2

had a diver clean the hull the day before we switched them on

That may well be the crucial step.


I've talked to several owners of motor vessels with sonic devices. The ones who report good results from their sonic devices have two things in common:


* they installed their sonic device while the vessel was hauled out and given new antifouling; and


* they have solid hulls, not cored or sandwich construction.


The first of these suggests that a sonic device cannot magically cleanse a hull that is already coated with a biofilm of bacteria, algae, and microscopic baby barnacles.


Whether the best clean by a diver is as good as new antifouling may be the question answered in April.


The owners with successful sonic installations all reported that the sonic device extended their need for new antifouling coating by several years.

[varkpilot]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

That may well be the crucial step.


I've talked to several owners of motor vessels with sonic devices. The ones who report good results from their sonic devices have two things in common:


* they installed their sonic device while the vessel was hauled out and given new antifouling; and


* they have solid hulls, not cored or sandwich construction.


The first of these suggests that a sonic device cannot magically cleanse a hull that is already coated with a biofilm of bacteria, algae, and microscopic baby barnacles.


Whether the best clean by a diver is as good as new antifouling may be the question answered in April.


The owners with successful sonic installations all reported that the sonic device extended their need for new antifouling coating by several years.

I had mixed results from my reading as well. You pretty much came to the same conclusions I did. A guy named Warwick on another forum gave a running account on his installation, Clean-A-Boat. Had pretty good results and indicated that the few which did adhere to his boat died in short order and he could scrape them off with his hand. That's a better report than I found for Jaycar. Seemed Jaycar owners were about half and half with their reports, stating either that it was God's own gift to yachties or else they had no results at all, just normal build-up for their money.

[CaptTom]

Until we see some actual, unbiased, controlled and repeatable test results, it's no better than snake oil.

Anecdotal evidence is a start, but doesn't really prove anything without a control.

It really wouldn't be difficult to do a real-world test. Two "hulls" (could be barrels or floats) hanging off the dock for a given period of time, one with the acoustic device and one without. Have several CF members perform the same test in different locations.

You could even make it a blind test by having a third party compare the two "hulls" after the test.

I'd set up a test site, if someone were to provide the materials. However, after years of hearing claims and anecdotes, with no clear resolution yet, I'd be reluctant to put any of my own money up. Seems to me that should be done by those making the claims.

[senormechanico]

I installed UltraSonitec system with four transducers on my 33' Dragonfly trimaran almost 4 years ago.
The bottom paint is 3 years old Micron Ultra with Irgarol.
The boat stays at the dock and does not get any use during the winter, and light use during the summer except for 6 weeks of vacation.
Before installation of the system, I had to clean my stuck knotmeter almost every time I went sailing. I even needed to do it after just one week of sitting at my dock.
Ever since I installed the system, the knotmeter transducer has worked perfectly, with no need to clean out the critters.
The boat gets a bit of slime which is brown, not green as previously, and it never gets any of that long green hairy stuff like in previous years.
The light bit of brown slime that does collect during extensive non use is pretty much gone after a day's fast sailing.

I have not washed the bottom at all in all this time, but I did slosh the waterline once or twice from my kayak.

An interesting factoid:
UltraSonitec costs more and demands more transducers for a given size boat, and promises LESS than the other brands.
The quality of construction is excellent, and the transducers are heavy for good transference of the ultrasonic energy.

When you factor that into the various brands stories of effectiveness, it's pretty obvious that somewhere someone is lying about their product.
No wonder so many people don't believe in the theory.

https://www.ultra-sonitec.com/

I still had a few small barnacles on my prop after a couple of years, but was able to clean them off last summer with a mask and scraper.

[varkpilot]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Until we see some actual, unbiased, controlled and repeatable test results, it's no better than snake oil.

Anecdotal evidence is a start, but doesn't really prove anything without a control.

It really wouldn't be difficult to do a real-world test. Two "hulls" (could be barrels or floats) hanging off the dock for a given period of time, one with the acoustic device and one without. Have several CF members perform the same test in different locations.

You could even make it a blind test by having a third party compare the two "hulls" after the test.

I'd set up a test site, if someone were to provide the materials. However, after years of hearing claims and anecdotes, with no clear resolution yet, I'd be reluctant to put any of my own money up. Seems to me that should be done by those making the claims.

Agreed. Anecdotal evidence is helpful, perhaps, but not enough. Those companies should have long since provided valid tests to prove their product. Since they haven't, at least to my knowledge, the snake oil does rear its ugly head. The price finally being down to a more reasonable level in some cases makes it much easier to prove it to myself, one way or the other. When I have definitive results for my boat, I'll report them here. Haven't even bought them yet, so it'll be a while. Even that will be nothing more than anecdotal to any but myself and I'm certainly no expert upon whom to rely.

[varkpilot]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

I installed UltraSonitec system with four transducers on my 33' Dragonfly trimaran almost 4 years ago.
The bottom paint is 3 years old Micron Ultra with Irgarol.
The boat stays at the dock and does not get any use during the winter, and light use during the summer except for 6 weeks of vacation.
Before installation of the system, I had to clean my stuck knotmeter almost every time I went sailing. I even needed to do it after just one week of sitting at my dock.
Ever since I installed the system, the knotmeter transducer has worked perfectly, with no need to clean out the critters.
The boat gets a bit of slime which is brown, not green as previously, and it never gets any of that long green hairy stuff like in previous years.
The light bit of brown slime that does collect during extensive non use is pretty much gone after a day's fast sailing.

I have not washed the bottom at all in all this time, but I did slosh the waterline once or twice from my kayak.

An interesting factoid:
UltraSonitec costs more and demands more transducers for a given size boat, and promises LESS than the other brands.
The quality of construction is excellent, and the transducers are heavy for good transference of the ultrasonic energy.

When you factor that into the various brands stories of effectiveness, it's pretty obvious that somewhere someone is lying about their product.
No wonder so many people don't believe in the theory.

https://www.ultra-sonitec.com/

I still had a few small barnacles on my prop after a couple of years, but was able to clean them off last summer with a mask and scraper.

Another good report and it corresponds to several others I've read. All of it except the long, green hairy weeds. One I read claimed it worked well with the exception that long, green hairy weed collected around the hull area, in a circle, where the transducer was glued inside the hull. Thanks for your input. That gives me Ultra-sonitec and Clean-a Boat as the best reports so far. Thanks much.

[senormechanico]

The effective range of Ultrasonitec is only a few millimeters from the hull.
If you have big fuzzy stuff growing when you install the system, the newbies will grow on top of the existing hull fuzz.
If it's clean when you install, nothing can attach. At least, that's the theory.
So far, I'm impressed. (in the PNW)

[varkpilot]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

The effective range of Ultrasonitec is only a few millimeters from the hull.
If you have big fuzzy stuff growing when you install the system, the newbies will grow on top of the existing hull fuzz.
If it's clean when you install, nothing can attach. At least, that's the theory.
So far, I'm impressed. (in the PNW)

The man wrote that his hull was clean when he kicked the sonic on, that the hairy stuff was all that attached and that only around the transducer location. Haven't had time to do more research today, but I'll get back to it tomorrow. PNW. Never been there other than to fly over it a few times, and then I was so high you couldn't really see anything. Understand it's beautiful.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by varkpilot

Another good report and it corresponds to several others I've read. All of it except the long, green hairy weeds.

Two points. First, inconsistent anecdotal evidence makes the need for real, unbiased testing that much stronger.

Second, It's very difficult to be unbiased when you've sunk your hard-earned money, and to some degree, your reputation and self-image, into a product.

New car buyers always receive a survey immediately, while they're still proud of their purchase. Car Manufacturers know these survey results are almost always extremely positive. The more expensive or unusual the product, the more glowing the initial reviews.

Far be it from me to question the veracity of anyone on this forum. Anecdotal evidence, without controls, could certainly be a real result. But for all I know, it could also be unintentionally biased, or it could be dumb luck.

I'm NOT saying these things don't work, or anybody here is wrong. Just that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[varkpilot]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Two points. First, inconsistent anecdotal evidence makes the need for real, unbiased testing that much stronger.

Second, It's very difficult to be unbiased when you've sunk your hard-earned money, and to some degree, your reputation and self-image, into a product.

New car buyers always receive a survey immediately, while they're still proud of their purchase. Car Manufacturers know these survey results are almost always extremely positive. The more expensive or unusual the product, the more glowing the initial reviews.

Far be it from me to question the veracity of anyone on this forum. Anecdotal evidence, without controls, could certainly be a real result. But for all I know, it could also be unintentionally biased, or it could be dumb luck.

I'm NOT saying these things don't work, or anybody here is wrong. Just that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

You're absolutely right, Cap. Assuming I come up with a positive result, how do you know I don't work for whichever product's company? You really can't, and that's the rub with anecdotal input. As it happens, I'm a 76-year old professional pilot and don't work for anyone in any capacity. How can you know that, though? How can you know I'm not really a 25-year old with stock in the sonic company? I guess you could do the research on me as an individual, but who wants to go to all that trouble? The fact remains that we, as potential purchasers of their product deserve valid tests by someone like Underwriters' Lab. Until then, those folks are just selling snake oil.

[senormechanico]

Capt Tom,

I agree with you about surveys, testimonials etc.
One of my pet peeves is reading five star reviews on Amazon and eBay.

"Five stars! I haven't used it yet, but the shipping was free/fast."
"Five stars ! It was the cheapest one I could find."
"Five stars ! Who cares if it dies in a year, it was cheap."

ARGH !!

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by varkpilot

You're absolutely right, Cap. Assuming I come up with a positive result, how do you know I don't work for whichever product's company?

That wouldn't even occur to me, unless you were a new member with just a few posts, all or most of which were hawking some product.

If you get a positive result, and if it sounds like you've made an effort to control as many variables as you can, I'd take that as a strong indication that more tests are in order, to help rule out unforeseen variables and narrow down the conditions under which this technology works and what its limitations are.

Originally Posted by varkpilot

The fact remains that we, as potential purchasers of their product deserve valid tests by someone like Underwriters' Lab. Until then, those folks are just selling snake oil.

Right. And the longer they persist making claims without hard evidence, the more I wonder if there's a reason for that.

[varkpilot]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Right. And the longer they persist making claims without hard evidence, the more I wonder if there's a reason for that.

Kinda reminds me of those stupid videos trying to sell you something. The longer they run, the more expensive and useless the product.

[fstbttms]

The fact that almost nobody uses these things is a testament to their effectiveness.

[varkpilot]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

The fact that almost nobody uses these things is a testament to their effectiveness.

LOL! You're quite probably on the mark. I also found it interesting that a lot of them come from Australia. I'd think if it was such a great product, the U.S. and Chinese manufacturers would be all over it.