Anyone with experience using "hull shield" ultrasonic antifouling system?

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Lee Jerry

I only pointed to the latest one. You know there were others, in both threads. The actual number doesn't matter, because it'll never be enough for you.

And you know as well as I that there were at least an equal number of users (and probably more) in these threads who said that the systems were useless. But the real question remains unanswered by you or anyone else here: Why, if these systems are as effective as you claim, are so few of them in use on pleasure craft?

I'll wait...

[Lee Jerry]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

And you know as well as I that there were at least an equal number of users (and probably more) in these threads who said that the systems were useless. But the real question remains unanswered by you or anyone else here: Why, if these systems are as effective as you claim, are so few of them in use on pleasure craft?

I'll wait...

Kinda tired of going around with you on this. But here are a few more considerations that I don't recall mentioned and might contribute to it:

Maybe the system cost for yachts has been too high in the earlier years and is only recently coming down to a level that make them cost effective.

Maybe a large percentage of boats (at least in the US) just don't need a system like this, meaning they don't live in the water at a marina. For example, a fishing boat that only goes in the water for the weekend and then lives on a trailer or boatel; or a sailboat that is dry-sailed; or where the boating season is short and boats are stored on the hard for the winter. I'd bet that this total group is well over half of the boats in the US.

Maybe (actually definitely) there are a group of owners who just don't care enough. How many boats in the marinas that you frequent never leave the dock and could be considered borderline delinquent? Are they paying you to clean their bottoms? You think they're going to install one of these systems?


So the best answer I can give you is: there is not one but rather many reasons they are not as common as you need them to be.

Again, that has no bearing on how effective they are. What determines how effective they are is how effective they are.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Lee Jerry

Maybe the system cost for yachts has been too high in the earlier years and is only recently coming down to a level that make them cost effective.

The cost has for many years typically been in line with a haulout and new bottom paint. That is to say, not exorbitant. And if installing the system significantly prolonged the time between haulouts in addition to eliminating the need for in-water hull cleaning, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the system would pay for itself within a few years. Strike One.

Originally Posted by Lee Jerry

Maybe a large percentage of boats (at least in the US) just don't need a system like this, meaning they don't live in the water at a marina.

Of course most boats don't live in the water. But many millions do. Those that do not live in the water are not part of the market for these systems and therefore not part of this discussion. You think that when I say "Nobody uses these things" I'm talking about the 18' ski boat on a trailer in somebody's driveway? Strike Two

Originally Posted by Lee Jerry

Maybe (actually definitely) there are a group of owners who just don't care enough. How many boats in the marinas that you frequent never leave the dock and could be considered borderline delinquent? Are they paying you to clean their bottoms? You think they're going to install one of these systems?

So your point is that the manufacturers have badly mis-estimated the market for these systems and that in reality, most boats are so poorly maintained that their owners would never drop a few thousand on an ultrasonic system and that's why so few are in use? Strike Three

Originally Posted by Lee Jerry

Again, that has no bearing on how effective they are. What determines how effective they are is how effective they are.

The proof is in the pudding. If they performed as advertised, more (a lot more) people would be using them. You have failed to refute that basic
point.

[Lee Jerry]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

The cost has for many years typically been in line with a haulout and new bottom paint. That is to say, not exorbitant. And if installing the system significantly prolonged the time between haulouts in addition to eliminating the need for in-water hull cleaning, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the system would pay for itself within a few years. Strike One.



Of course most boats don't live in the water. But many millions do. Those that do not live in the water are not part of the market for these systems and therefore not part of this discussion. You think that when I say "Nobody uses these things" I'm talking about the 18' ski boat on a trailer in somebody's driveway? Strike Two



So your point is that the manufacturers have badly mis-estimated the market for these systems and that in reality, most boats are so poorly maintained that their owners would never drop a few thousand on an ultrasonic system and that's why so few are in use? Strike Three

The point is I think the market is a lot smaller than you imply. I don't think it is many millions in the US (as I was talking about), but maybe worldwide. How many of those do think are members of this forum and can/want to give you testimony?

The proof is in the pudding. If they performed as advertised, more (a lot more) people would be using them. You have failed to refute that basic
point.

No! No! No! No! No! No! I don't know how many times I can say it. That is a basic logical fallacy. In particular, an argument ad populum. From wikipedia:

"Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy, specifically a fallacy of relevance. It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people, stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.

Appeals to popularity are common in commercial advertising that portrays products as desirable because they are used by many people or associated with popular sentiments instead of communicating the merits of the products themselves.

The inverse argument, that something that is unpopular must be flawed, is also a form of this fallacy."


So how popular they are, how popular you think they are, have no, none, absolutely zero, bearing on how well they work.

[mvweebles]

I've read the available research both scientific and antectodal, including observations from professionals I hold in esteem such as Steve D'Antonio cited up-thread that show limited efficacy. My conclusion is Ultrasonic Antifouling clearly has potential, but needs to work in tandem with bottom paint. It's not a silver bullet. To me it makes sense that finding the right frequency and means to generate it is a reasonable explanation why prior efforts have not always met with success. Despite the amount of time this has been in the background, it's still very early in the development cycle given the amount of R&D and marketing required, plus the liklihood success would be ripped-off. I can easily understand why it's been a slow slog - it happens. Leonardo DaVinci made sketches of human flight 400-years before Wilbur and Orville found modest success at Kitty Hawk. Once they cracked the code, it took-off, literally and figuratively: it was only just over 25-years before Lindburgh crossed the Atlantic non-stop. Had there been internet forums prior to 1903's Kitty Hark launch, I'm sure there would have been blow-hard naysayers spouting all sorts of flawed logic arguments.

Something to keep an eye on for sure.

[Lee Jerry]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

I've read the available research both scientific and antectodal, including observations from professionals I hold in esteem such as Steve D'Antonio cited up-thread that show limited efficacy. My conclusion is Ultrasonic Antifouling clearly has potential, but needs to work in tandem with bottom paint. It's not a silver bullet. To me it makes sense that finding the right frequency and means to generate it is a reasonable explanation why prior efforts have not always met with success. Despite the amount of time this has been in the background, it's still very early in the development cycle given the amount of R&D and marketing required, plus the liklihood success would be ripped-off. I can easily understand why it's been a slow slog - it happens. Leonardo DaVinci made sketches of human flight 400-years before Wilbur and Orville found modest success at Kitty Hawk. Once they cracked the code, it took-off, literally and figuratively: it was only just over 25-years before Lindburgh crossed the Atlantic non-stop. Had there been internet forums prior to 1903's Kitty Hark launch, I'm sure there would have been blow-hard naysayers spouting all sorts of flawed logic arguments.

Something to keep an eye on for sure.

I agree. But I would point out that no one that I can recall promoting these things has claimed them to be a replacement for paint, but rather works in conjunction with paint. (Steve D expected it to replace paint for some reason, which may have factored into his thinking.)

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by Lee Jerry

I agree. But I would point out that no one that I can recall promoting these things has claimed them to be a replacement for paint, but rather works in conjunction with paint. (Steve D expected it to replace paint for some reason, which may have factored into his thinking.)

Steve D talked about it for a very specific reason: Many long range trawlers such as Nordhavns have dry-exhaust and keel-coolers that are recommended to NOT be painted. So in this limited use-case, goal is to protect the gear from fouling without paint. Same with props and shafts.

I think it makes sense to use in tandem with paint, a prophylactic vs full strength. For example, organic gardners are very familiar with how effective mild organic pesticides can prevent infestation but if an infestation occurs, much more severe measures are needed. "Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."