Visit our Popular Forums

RKsailsolo · 29-12-2015, 09:22

Anyone have experience with ultrasonic anti fouling products?

fstbttms · 29-12-2015, 09:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKsailsolo

ULTRASONIC ANTIFOULING: Second Full-Season Results | Sailfeed

As always, without comparative pix showing the bottom six months foul without the ultrasonic system, this article tells us essentially nothing.

colemj · 29-12-2015, 09:58

Actually, the article told me that the boat was painted with traditional anti foul paint in addition to the ultrasound device.

Coupled with the author's statement that he "thought" the fouling was less than it would have been without the device tells me everything I need to know about it.

Particularly when he compared the current results with previous results using only a completely different paint from a different manufacturer in a different location over a different period of time.

Actually the article pissed me off in just how poor of a controlled experiment it was and procedures it used, while making the attempt to pass these updates off as "data" and "interim conclusions".

Both the author and the magazine should know better and be ashamed of themselves.

A 404 error would have been more informative and useful.

Mark

fstbttms · 29-12-2015, 10:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by colemj

Actually, the article told me that the boat was painted with traditional anti foul paint in addition to the ultrasound device.

If you do a little research, you will find that the manufacturers of most (if not all) ultrasonic systems are careful to quietly indicate that the systems are not intended to be used without anti fouling paint, but rather in conjunction with it.

RKsailsolo · 31-12-2015, 06:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms

If you do a little research, you will find that the manufacturers of most (if not all) ultrasonic systems are careful to quietly indicate that the systems are not intended to be used without anti fouling paint, but rather in conjunction with it.

I see your point. I did get that view myself (ultrasound system effectiveness is co dependent on anti fouling paint). So I am still trying to make a distinction about is the investment worth it if it extends service life of the anti fouling?

fstbttms · 31-12-2015, 09:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKsailsolo

I see your point. I did get that view myself (ultrasound system effectiveness is co dependent on anti fouling paint). So I am still trying to make a distinction about is the investment worth it if it extends service life of the anti fouling?

I don't see how it could extend the life of the paint. The biocide in the paint is leached out at a predetermined rate set by the manufacturer and that leach rate is unalterable. Ultrasonic systems will not affect that. The point can be made that ultrasonics keep the bottom cleaner and therefore less in-water cleaning is needed, but the reality is that in almost all situations, proper in-water cleaning techniques will keep a paint working well until its biocide is depleted anyway. Proper cleaning methods do not shorten a paint's lifespan. The exception to this case might be when extremely soft ablatives (Vivid, Trilux 33 etc.) which cannot stand up to even the gentlest cleanings, are used.