Ultrasonic antifouling

[Bud]

I have recently had some positive feedback from a long time freind and boatbuilder that this works well. He is using

Hull Shield HD4 Ultrasonic Antifouling System​

on a 52 ft power catamaran. Any thoughts or experience would be appreciated.

 

[mvweebles]

Topic has been discussed a few times. Personally, I am not compelled by the anecdotal stories and lack of science and real-world testing. There are a lot of folks for whom the results are negligible. Manufacturer always has a ready-made excuse along the lines of 'it was an installation problem.'

I believe it's Hull Shield who advertises being an option on Aquila PowerCats. Hull Shield could silence naysayers like me by simply installing their product on one hull but not the other and comparing the two. Wonder why they haven't done such a test? Certainly, leads to a healthy dose of suspicion so I've put ultrasonic hull cleaning in the same "snake-oil" bucket as Algae-X magnetic fuel conditioners. But I would love to be proved wrong - If there was a modicum of supporting evidence, their market would explode, especially in Florida where Aquila's are delivered. Not uncommon for owners to be on a 3-week bottom diver schedule.

Peter

 

[O C Diver]

Topic has been discussed a few times. Personally, I am not compelled by the anecdotal stories and lack of science and real-world testing. There are a lot of folks for whom the results are negligible. Manufacturer always has a ready-made excuse along the lines of 'it was an installation problem.'

I believe it's Hull Shield who advertises being an option on Aquila PowerCats. Hull Shield could silence naysayers like me by simply installing their product on one hull but not the other and comparing the two. Wonder why they haven't done such a test? Certainly, leads to a healthy dose of suspicion so I've put ultrasonic hull cleaning in the same "snake-oil" bucket as Algae-X magnetic fuel conditioners. But I would love to be proved wrong - If there was a modicum of supporting evidence, their market would explode, especially in Florida where Aquila's are delivered. Not uncommon for owners to be on a 3-week bottom diver schedule.

The other part of the equation is that there's a moderate investment for vessels of our size. For larger vessels, it's a rounding error on cost. If it worked without question, vessels in the >$5M range would have it as standard equipment, like stabilizers.

Ted

 

[tiltrider1]

Every supplier of ultrasonic protection that I have investigated list the same comment deep in the fine print. “ this product is not meant to replace bottom paint. It’s meant to work with bottom paint for a superior protection “. Once I have a good coat of bottom paint I don’t really feel like I need any more protection.

 

[mvweebles]

Every supplier of ultrasonic protection that I have investigated list the same comment deep in the fine print. “ this product is not meant to replace bottom paint. It’s meant to work with bottom paint for a superior protection “. Once I have a good coat of bottom paint I don’t really feel like I need any more protection.

I'm fine with having it needing bottom paint. If ultrasonic hull cleaning could reliably reduce need for bottom diver by half, I'd be a buyer. So my expectations are not that high. But even that low bar hasn't been cleared by any of the claims I've seen.

Peter

 

[SteveK]

More tests like this one is needed. Side by side on similar boats in a fleet of boats some without was inconclusive when compared.
I found it interesting that these charter boats came back with the wires disconnected so crew could get a good noghts sleep. Wonder what sea life thinks about it, the ones that do not attach to hulls.