Visit our Popular Forums

Nordic cat · 22-03-2009, 09:37

Sid,
It sounds as though the vessels being monitored/tested all have antifouling, whereas the so called "reference panels" do not. The boats move at some speed whereas the reference panels don't. This doesn't make it at all comparable, sounds like the result is given in advance.

In one of the quoted e.mails you posted, the boat owner slaims it keeps his props clean, whereas in another posted mail, the opposite is claimed. What should we believe?

Can you tell us a bit more about how the system works? You say that it causes the hull to resonate, how does it find the right frequency for the different parts of the hull?

You still have not posted any documentation with Lloyds approval, or any approvals of any kind from a neutral scientific source.

Regardless of how many transducers you mount, there is no way this will work on a hull with different layups, stringers, bulkheads etc, as every area will have a different resonant frequency.

Until you prove me wrong,(by a published test written by a neutral party) I will maintain my claim of this being a hoax, and reccomend that people not waste their time and money on this kind of product.

Send the money to a charity of your choice, and I will cast a spell on all the nasties in the water around your boat, that will keep your boat clean. 50$ a month up to 50 feet, 75$ for anything bigger.

Alan

neelie · 22-03-2009, 13:16

I presume you are proposing an ancient Viking heathen rite?

Th one which involves the application of lots of beer and Aquavit which must first be strained through ones kidneys prior to application on the hull?

nmit5903 · 09-06-2009, 16:20

My final update. The unit was refitted again earlier in the year having discovered that the slipcoat needed to be removed in order that the transducers had direct contact with the glass.

A single unit could not cope with a 42' and BoatSure upgraded to a twin unit free of charge.

The unit drew 1.2A to $1.8A which killed the battery bank (2 X 140AH lead batteries). The single 68w solar panel was unable to cope with demand so we fitted a further 2X80W panels over the bimini, however this too was unable to cope with prolonged overcast weather and the battery bank took another hiding.

I have therefore given up the battle. The units have been removed and returned to BoatSure who were as good their word and refunded the original invoice price.

I will have to replace the battery bank which I planned to upgrade next season anyway and some minor repairs to the hull to fill and re-slipcoat.

My conclusion is that the unit is a great idea but is only suitable for yachts on a berth with a permanent power supply.

Steve Pope · 09-06-2009, 16:45

NMit thanks for the update, I for one had hoped that it would be more successful, having an alloy yacht etc. Like you I wouldn't have the battery power or solar capacity to cope.
Has anyone found an effective replacement for TBT??

nmit5903 · 10-06-2009, 15:53

Try speaking to a bloke I know called Jay Talbot. He has distribution rights for a product called "yournewbarnaclesolution", a new environmentally friendly product out of Florida that claims to get up to 18 months (in Florida which apparantly is notorious for algae and barnacle build up). I gather it is also up to 20% cheaper than something like Altex No 5 which I use. Its a hard antifoul and therefore I gather you can clean off underneath in the water without getting the ablative antifouls all over your skin. He is based at Pittwater.

His number is 0414 079220.

I plan to use it for next summer.

He also stocks a US water filter which I fitted to Girasol 12 months ago which has been fantastic and unlike most of the locally available product - comes with US test data on all the nasty stuff in water tanks.

fstbttms · 11-06-2009, 07:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by nmit5903

Try speaking to a bloke I know called Jay Talbot. He has distribution rights for a product called "yournewbarnaclesolution", a new environmentally friendly product out of Florida that claims to get up to 18 months (in Florida which apparantly is notorious for algae and barnacle build up).

I plan to use it for next summer.

It's your dime, but don't assume that a product that is effective in Florida will perform well in your part of the world, especially since it is realtively unknown and untested. Anti fouling paints can have very different levels of performance in different regions. Just sayin'.

Ramona · 14-06-2009, 17:36

Had a chat to another local yachtsman yesterday who has fitted the UK version of the ultrasonic bit of kit discussed here. Interestingly its $2000 cheaper to buy direct than the Australian badged one. He was pleasantly surprised how well its kept his folding prop and sail drive clean for the last few months.
The attaching threaded nut to the transducer is a stock item plumbing bit, its the nut that holds sink strainers in place in your average kitchen. I would bet the transducer is a plumbers item as well with the transducer simply set in resin. The control box looks like a stock electrical connection box.
Have to admire the business acumen of some individuals.

I will reserve judgement. If its as good as advertised it will soon be a compulsory item in this country. Best way to make a profit is to convince governments its good for the environment.

Sambuca · 07-09-2009, 04:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by sid kimbrough

Alan,
The proof is in the pudding as they say. believing or not believing in an idea is one thing but this product has been on ten boats now for bwetween five and seven months and it works on all of them.
sid

I am late in joining this discussion but having worked in ultrasonics for more years than most ( I was design engineer to D.O. Sproule the acknowleded inventor of Ultrasonic NDT) I would make the following obsevations. The system may work but the explanation doesn't. I have read that power consumption is 6ma, voltage not given, but at 12volts this would be 72mW and at 230 volts only 1.4 Watts. Most of this energy would transmit direct through the hull to the water and would not cause cavitation in the water directly under the transducers let alone set up sufficient vibrations in the whole hull length sufficient to cause cavitation over the whole area.

"Resonance of the hull"? I can think of no resonaces likely to occur in a hull at ultrasonic frequencies although with careful transducer design one might set up Lamb Waves in the surface but not by the tranducer displayed in the site video.

Therefore either publish frequencies and power levels and let independent persons repeat the work. If they confirm your patents protect you. Southampton University should publish their work an offer scientific explanation for the effect.

**GordMay** · 07-09-2009, 05:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sambuca

... "Resonance of the hull"? I can think of no resonaces likely to occur in a hull at ultrasonic frequencies although with careful transducer design one might set up Lamb Waves in the surface but not by the tranducer displayed in the site video ...

Greetings and welcome aboard the CF, Sambuca.

Wouldn’t any transducer, designed to resonate a given hull, have to be designed to force that hull at it’s resonant frequency (and/or various harmonics)? Thus, wouldn’t each hull require a specifically designed transducer, designed to that’s hull’s natural resonant frequency, and avoiding all damping influences particular to that hull (in it’s present state, which would change with the addition/removal; of fuel, water, stores and etc.)?

Sambuca · 07-09-2009, 06:31

Hi

My point exactly. Hull resonance is not an explanation just gobbledegook! It may or may not work but I would want a better explanation or truly independent proof before I risked my hard eaned pennies.

Martinini · 02-10-2009, 18:54

Was an exterminator for 25 years and have experiance with the rodent/bug version of this type device. 1. Isn't it strange that the device works on rodents like rats, but not Jr's Gerbil--which by the way is also a rodent! They DON'T Work save your money. If these devices truley worked there would no longer be any Exterminating Companies--they would be obselete! Was pitched to become a distributor by a company to sell these things mailorder. They admitted they didn't work, but only one in 500 would actually spend the money on postage after spending the cash to purchase in the first place to send it back. Oh BTW did a resturant that had this type of thing installed and had to go in weekly and pull the mice out that had built nests in them.

Chief Engineer · 02-10-2009, 19:28

buhweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Buhweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

see no barn-akkels

Martinini · 02-10-2009, 20:40

Ask for a Money Back Guarantee if it really works , should be no problem.

George Wade · 02-10-2009, 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Engineer

It was probably invented by Nikola Tesla....

Good try !
In fact it was developed by the crews of aircraft carriers playing loud music on long voyages abroad. When the regular drydocking was done it was noticed that some areas were not fouled. Somebody checked up and discovered that rowdy crews quarters are discriminated against by fouling organisms. The digital rights movement never noticed, either.