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

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by xcebeuq

Never heard of Hull Shield. Best you try Coppercoat (legal in California). Applied this to my boat in 2012, and it's still going strong. Without question an unqualified success.

Ultrasonics and Coppercoat- the snake oil duo of anti fouling

[deepthought]

What is wrong with Coppercoat?

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Well, I am a fan of neither Sea Hawk paints or Coppercoat. But forced to choose between the two, I'd go with Biocop. I know lots of hull divers in Florida who swear by it.

I wouldn't wish Coppercoat on an enemy.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by deepthought

What is wrong with Coppercoat?

It's one of the least effective and most difficult to clean anti fouling coatings I have ever come across in my 28 years as a professional hull diver. At my company, we typically refuse to service boats that use it. Fortunately, few do.

[xcebeuq]

Sounds like I've received some responses from divers who feat that Coppercoat is likely to put them out of business.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by xcebeuq

Sounds like I've received some responses from divers who feat that Coppercoat is likely to put them out of business.

Bwahahahaha!

[hezi973]

From what I hear / read and saw video reviews, Coppercoat is very tricky to apply and can be messed up very easily if not applied correctly (see sailing Britican episode). With that, many cruisers swear by it. My experience extend to Sea Hawk ablative paint. I applied Biocop TF which is one of the highest rated paint by Sea Hawk (I was on the phone with them) and I can't say enough good things. It was expensive at $300+ a gallon, but a year after, I had zero growth. Same goas for the Propspeed I applied. Zero growth. I have some time before I can take possession of my Cat, and hopefully more is going to be available on ultrasonic tech, but if I will hear more positive accounts, I will get a system for the hulls, and a system for the sail drives and rudders. Most likely, I will go with coppercoat and propspeed. My take, my chance.

[svfinlandia]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

OK, is there a link to the results of their testing? Where did they test it? For how long? On what kind of hull? In what climate? Was it a double-blind test? What did they use for a control? Were the results confirmed by other labs?

I'd really love to find the holy grail of anti-fouling. But I'm afraid extraordinary claims are going to require extraordinary proof before I get too excited.

I’m with you there Captain Tom!
It’s like the old saying: “86.9% of statistics are made up on the spot”.

Al, S/V Finlandia

[nonav]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Interesting. I'm just speculating here, but it seems sound would travel well through the metal of the shaft and prop. I'd be thrilled if I could install an ultrasonic device to just keep those from fouling, never mind the hull. Shouldn't be too hard to make something which tapped on the shaft at some magic frequency, once we know what that is.

Anecdotal evidence, especially from people who have reason to want to see it working, isn't definitive. But enough of them might get my hopes up.

This technology has been around for at least 30 years, and sounded somewhat interesting when I first saw it.

Attaching a transponder to your shaft should be a bit tricky since it needs to be coupled.

It would rotate with the moving parts, and create a serious oscillation due to the unbalanced weight.

The noise would drive me batty!

My aunt had a rodent squealer in the attic that operated in the 20k range, and it was incredibly annoying.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Checkswrecks

Another result: https://boattest.com/hull-shield-ult...fouling-system

I really hope this is what the test person says it is. If so and I see some others have the same results, I would switch the next haulout.I need to do a blister repeir and would be good to revamp the whole bottom deal.

[Boatwright]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

I see you're a flat-earth type of guy...

Bit ironic that you complain BoatTest makes bold that you cannot validate, but you make bold that no one can validate?

This is a bit strong; calling a knowledgeable pro names doesn't accomplish anything. Using the following feats of logic neither proves or disproves anything at all about the effectiveness of ultrasonic anti-fouling systems.

It's called circular reasoning, as in: The gizmo may work; people selling the gizmo say it works and they have a video; a heavy on ads outfit called GizmoTest has a report; there are absolutely no negative reports; therefor, not only might it work there is evidence enough, and anybody that doesn't believe either has an axe to grind or is a "flat earther".

How about this:

1) We have an experienced marine technician with years of experience cleaning boat bottoms. He has been a regular contributor on this forum, and we have no reason to doubt his honesty. He reports that he has never seen one of these systems. If they were in wide use one would assume he would have run across at least some. Perhaps a system broke down, and he had to clean the hull. Perhaps a former customer had one installed and told our friend he was no longer needed. The fact that none of these things happened tells me that there are very few or none of these systems in actual use.

2) The absence of user reports could conceivably mean that 100% of the users are 100% satisfied, and 100% of those are very private people who don't even make a positive review. As to user reports, if these systems were in wide use one would expect a normal looking distribution, with a good product having plenty of 4 and 5 stars with some disgruntled customers down in the 1 star area. The most likely explanation for this situation is also that there are very few or none of these systems in actual use.

I am sure most of you have seen ultrasonic pest control devices that emit magic soundwaves that only rats, mice, mosquitoes, and miller moths can hear. Hot tip -- they don't work either.

[deepthought]

That is strange we have had coppercoat on 2 of our boats one of the boats we had it on for over 15yrs now (still on the boat) 5yrs in Scotland and the rest in the Caribbean, always found it easier than anything else I have tried to clean. On our other boat for 7yrs in Med and Caribbean and again excellent.

Originally Posted by fstbttms

It's one of the least effective and most difficult to clean anti fouling coatings I have ever come across in my 28 years as a professional hull diver. At my company, we typically refuse to service boats that use it. Fortunately, few do.

[volksbar]

We completed a 3 yr research project on Algae control and ultrasound.
This was done on lakes and industrial waters.

I would refrain to extrapolate our experiences to marine situations in general, yet here are some possibly relevant insights.

To measure an effect in highly algae populated / green lakes, it takes days. Not hours. Also water temperature, light and nutrients make a difference.

Can ultrasound reduce algae growth? Yes, most definitely.
An impact on shell-fish? We could not detect . Whether it works on barnacles? I doubt.

Algae and plants etc are highly complex critters.
While ultrasound inhibits the multiplication of some algae, it has almost no effect on others.
Furthermore the composition of algae and bacteria colonies differs at different locations.

Whether they work in your local marina or anchoring place?
Depends much on the making up of the local plant and algae population.

Would I recommend to invest in the technology for boats?
Yet if you are not rich enough to wave the technology good bye with a smile if it fails,
its worthwhile to test it within your local situation., compare the result to a boat 2 hundred yards away. This way you may find out whether it works in your area.

For people with less money to play, I would rather follow the advice of other sceptics who expressed their doubts before.

When operating it, it might make sense to install it not as a through-hull transducer - but to lower the device while at anchor aside the hull into the water (less power absorbed by the hull)

As others mentioned, for marine mammals the sound/noise is clearly audible – something to take into consideration as-well...

[StoneCrab]

SV Delos installed one of these systems.

I didn't hear them talking about it after the installation.

I kind of quit watching the Delos videos when it became an emo love fest and everything was "life changing". The click bait disaster thumbnails also turned me off. In fairness, they always said the videos were posted so they could keep in touch with their families. Their family is probably still watching.

Boy I must need a nap!

The future of bottom coatings will be in nanotechnologies. There are products coming out that repel water and are too slippery for biologics to attach. They will still need a wipe down but it will be what teflon was to the kitchen pans.

Even Teflon wears out, so these will need to be recoated too, but the technology is out there.

[Lee Jerry]

Originally Posted by Boatwright

This is a bit strong; calling a knowledgeable pro names doesn't accomplish anything. Using the following feats of logic neither proves or disproves anything at all about the effectiveness of ultrasonic anti-fouling systems.

It's called circular reasoning, as in: The gizmo may work; people selling the gizmo say it works and they have a video; a heavy on ads outfit called GizmoTest has a report; there are absolutely no negative reports; therefor, not only might it work there is evidence enough, and anybody that doesn't believe either has an axe to grind or is a "flat earther".

I think a better term for what you are talking about is "bias." For example, when a "new" product or technology is introduced that (if it worked) might threaten the quantity or even existence of one's job, and that someone proclaims that it does not work without much evidence.

How about this:

1) We have an experienced marine technician with years of experience cleaning boat bottoms. He has been a regular contributor on this forum, and we have no reason to doubt his honesty. He reports that he has never seen one of these systems. If they were in wide use one would assume he would have run across at least some. Perhaps a system broke down, and he had to clean the hull. Perhaps a former customer had one installed and told our friend he was no longer needed. The fact that none of these things happened tells me that there are very few or none of these systems in actual use.

2) The absence of user reports could conceivably mean that 100% of the users are 100% satisfied, and 100% of those are very private people who don't even make a positive review. As to user reports, if these systems were in wide use one would expect a normal looking distribution, with a good product having plenty of 4 and 5 stars with some disgruntled customers down in the 1 star area. The most likely explanation for this situation is also that there are very few or none of these systems in actual use.

No one said they were in wide use; that is basically the issue. While I value said experienced technician's opinion on things, that does not mean said person cannot be wrong. For example, there have been several examples provided of ultrasonic antifouling working (or at least showing promise), both testimonials and independent testing results, in opposition to what said technician says about it. Also, said technician said a specific antifoul paint does not work, but there is at least one glowing endorsement of it. So where does that leave us?

[Lee Jerry]

Originally Posted by volksbar

We completed a 3 yr research project on Algae control and ultrasound.
This was done on lakes and industrial waters.

I would refrain to extrapolate our experiences to marine situations in general, yet here are some possibly relevant insights.

To measure an effect in highly algae populated / green lakes, it takes days. Not hours. Also water temperature, light and nutrients make a difference.

Can ultrasound reduce algae growth? Yes, most definitely.
An impact on shell-fish? We could not detect . Whether it works on barnacles? I doubt.

Algae and plants etc are highly complex critters.
While ultrasound inhibits the multiplication of some algae, it has almost no effect on others.
Furthermore the composition of algae and bacteria colonies differs at different locations.

Whether they work in your local marina or anchoring place?
Depends much on the making up of the local plant and algae population.

Would I recommend to invest in the technology for boats?
Yet if you are not rich enough to wave the technology good bye with a smile if it fails,
its worthwhile to test it within your local situation., compare the result to a boat 2 hundred yards away. This way you may find out whether it works in your area.

For people with less money to play, I would rather follow the advice of other sceptics who expressed their doubts before.

When operating it, it might make sense to install it not as a through-hull transducer - but to lower the device while at anchor aside the hull into the water (less power absorbed by the hull)

As others mentioned, for marine mammals the sound/noise is clearly audible – something to take into consideration as-well...

I think you might be talking about a different type of system. The system mentioned in the OP requires the transducers be mounted TO the hull (not as a through-hull) with the intention of putting the power/vibration into the hull. They claim little energy is transmitted much outside the hull.