DESPITE A CONSPICUOUS DEARTH OF INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY TEST DATA, THIS IDEA FOR KEEPING CRITTERS FROM GROWING ON YOUR VESSEL'S BOTTOM CONTINUES INTO ITS FOURTH DECADE OF MYTHIC MARKETING
I could not agree more, I first encountered sonic anti-fouling while working at a yard in NY in the early 90s, that was a gen I product. A salesman came in with a compelling sales pitch, the yard manager agreed to try it on his boat, it failed miserably. All these years later and I have many clients who have tried successive generations of sonic anti fouling and I'm still waiting for one to say, "Dang, better than sliced bread'.
Thanks, Steve, for reading and commenting ... and for bringing your long experience and nearly encyclopedic knowledge to the conversation. Good to hear from you. Cheers!
I've rarely read such a collection of personal opinions that are totally contrary to the truth.
You are definitely a Trump supporter! A person who lives in a parallel reality that he is trying to impose on the world, a tyranny of fake.
You're obviously under contract to the manufacturers of pesticide-based paints, with a mission to very meticulously destroy the reality of the services provided by good ultrasonic antifouling systems.
Are all ultrasonic systems good? No...
Have you had the misfortune to come across a bad system or a bad assembly (the effect of your penny-pinching or incompetence too, maybe)? Perhaps...
Are you incapable of seriously assessing how these systems work and whether the conditions for their operation are actually met? Very probably yes.
But in all certainty and with the support of numerous independent laboratories, including the one in Lorient in France (CNRS and Université Bretagne Sud), which is one of the best in the world, the effectiveness of good ultrasound protection systems is perfectly proven.
And I'm not even talking about the users, especially the professionals, who know how to choose the right brand, install the system and use it. They are perfectly happy, as is the marine environment, which benefits massively from lower fuel consumption, a huge reduction in pesticide inputs, and a huge reduction in the inputs of ultra-harmful microplastics associated with erodable paints.
So I'm giving you one last chance to revise your judgement with a bit of rigour, avoiding relying on your poor personal experience and confirmation bias, and certifying here that you have not been ‘discreetly’ commissioned by the toxic paint industry.
If you do not come back with a more scientific and truthful opinion, we will know that you are playing the alternative truth, that of your personal interests.
Well, Stefan, you hit all of the fallacious bases — ad hominem, red herring, and Straw Man arguments. I did not say that ultrasonic anti-fouling systems do not work. I said that I have yet to see one which is practical.and cost-effective for Boats and Yachts. I also note that you fail to support your claims with any citations or links to actual studies having to do with Boats and Yachts. As to environmental considerations, the most ludicrous position of all is to combine ultrasonic with biocidal systems as some sort of hybrid approach since this involves the disbursement of such biocidals into Ithe environment at the same levels with or without ultrasonic. Moreover, if you bother to read the article in full, you will see that I don’t recommend that approach in the least. In fact, I say that such hybrid approach., which, by the way, is marketed by some firms, as proof that the ultrasonic products at issue do not work. If you have a study or studies to the contrary to cite, please feel free to do so. and I will post your list here. In the absence of that, you will forgive me for not taking your word about the nature of the studies to which you nominally refer or to what the actual conclusions in said studies were. And, BTW, your vehemence
and aggressively accusatory tone — a typical Trumplican tactic —!tells me that you may very well have a commercial connection or other special self-interest in the promotion of ultrasonic anti-fouling for boats and yachts. Thank you for reading and commenting. Cheers!
You have taken the initiative to publish on the subject of ultrasonic antifouling.
You have therefore made a tacit commitment to the public to offer a paper based on real knowledge and real work, if not specific expertise. You have also made a commitment to be loyal to logic, truth and sincerity, all with the humility that accompanies all honest and rational projects.
I don't see any of these commitments being honoured, other than to put forward your personal opinions on the basis of very little personal work and totally non-existent expertise.
I am neither paid nor hired in any way to compensate for your deficiencies, to limit your propensity to promote yourself, and it is not my mission to follow your writings in order to systematically debunk them.
Everyone will therefore have to take their own personal approach to questioning your statements and sources and take all the necessary precautions when reading your conclusions.
I am not competing with the latter, but rather warning the public about the quality of your comments and the background to them.
As for my declaration of personal interests, it is neither compulsory nor secret.
I have a personal interest in the business of a major brand of ultrasonic protection systems, which I won't name because I'm not making a promotional stunt here but a very strong warning on a subject that is very important for the ecology of the oceans.
If I were selling nicotine substitutes, I would also be very angry with all those who deny their effectiveness and therefore support the tobacco industry, because there are major effects for the common good at the end of our communications.
So that everyone understands where I stand, I spent several years checking out the real effects of ultrasound systems before getting involved in this business. I'm an engineer long before I was a retailer, and I'm only involved professionally in ‘virtuous’ projects. The impact of my work must be environmentally neutral or positive, and this is an imperative that I constantly check.
@Stefan - Thank you for your clarification of your commercial interest in and connection to ultrasonic anti-fouling — neither of which I have in the least. My primary responsibility is to my readers and subscribers. And that is to deliver my honest, considered opinion (yes, opinion ) on matters boating and yachting, based on my 40+ years in the industry.
.
I appreciate your feedback, but I notice that you have still not provided a single citation or link to a published, independent third-party study that confirms the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ultra-sonic anti fouling as applied to boats and yachts.
.
Just to be clear, I do not recommend the continuing use of biocidal anti-fouling as a general policy. But I am also concerned with the fact that a number of deficient sonic systems on the market may lull people into not pursuing better solutions, where they are available. So, I will continue to express my opinions in the service of my readers. And remain, in this matter, ready to take note of any substantive confirmed counter-opinion. Thank you for reading and commenting. Cheers!
If I recall correctly, ultrasonic systems have been used in a variety of non marine applications - underwater piping comes to mind - and has proven successful there.
Wally, that’s true. But on, for example, a fixed pipe intake or outlet, eliminating 85% of barnacle growth makes a huge difference over, say, 10 years. However, the equation is different for a vessel that hauls annually or every other year anyway.
I could not agree more, I first encountered sonic anti-fouling while working at a yard in NY in the early 90s, that was a gen I product. A salesman came in with a compelling sales pitch, the yard manager agreed to try it on his boat, it failed miserably. All these years later and I have many clients who have tried successive generations of sonic anti fouling and I'm still waiting for one to say, "Dang, better than sliced bread'.
Thanks, Steve, for reading and commenting ... and for bringing your long experience and nearly encyclopedic knowledge to the conversation. Good to hear from you. Cheers!
I've rarely read such a collection of personal opinions that are totally contrary to the truth.
You are definitely a Trump supporter! A person who lives in a parallel reality that he is trying to impose on the world, a tyranny of fake.
You're obviously under contract to the manufacturers of pesticide-based paints, with a mission to very meticulously destroy the reality of the services provided by good ultrasonic antifouling systems.
Are all ultrasonic systems good? No...
Have you had the misfortune to come across a bad system or a bad assembly (the effect of your penny-pinching or incompetence too, maybe)? Perhaps...
Are you incapable of seriously assessing how these systems work and whether the conditions for their operation are actually met? Very probably yes.
But in all certainty and with the support of numerous independent laboratories, including the one in Lorient in France (CNRS and Université Bretagne Sud), which is one of the best in the world, the effectiveness of good ultrasound protection systems is perfectly proven.
And I'm not even talking about the users, especially the professionals, who know how to choose the right brand, install the system and use it. They are perfectly happy, as is the marine environment, which benefits massively from lower fuel consumption, a huge reduction in pesticide inputs, and a huge reduction in the inputs of ultra-harmful microplastics associated with erodable paints.
So I'm giving you one last chance to revise your judgement with a bit of rigour, avoiding relying on your poor personal experience and confirmation bias, and certifying here that you have not been ‘discreetly’ commissioned by the toxic paint industry.
If you do not come back with a more scientific and truthful opinion, we will know that you are playing the alternative truth, that of your personal interests.
Well, Stefan, you hit all of the fallacious bases — ad hominem, red herring, and Straw Man arguments. I did not say that ultrasonic anti-fouling systems do not work. I said that I have yet to see one which is practical.and cost-effective for Boats and Yachts. I also note that you fail to support your claims with any citations or links to actual studies having to do with Boats and Yachts. As to environmental considerations, the most ludicrous position of all is to combine ultrasonic with biocidal systems as some sort of hybrid approach since this involves the disbursement of such biocidals into Ithe environment at the same levels with or without ultrasonic. Moreover, if you bother to read the article in full, you will see that I don’t recommend that approach in the least. In fact, I say that such hybrid approach., which, by the way, is marketed by some firms, as proof that the ultrasonic products at issue do not work. If you have a study or studies to the contrary to cite, please feel free to do so. and I will post your list here. In the absence of that, you will forgive me for not taking your word about the nature of the studies to which you nominally refer or to what the actual conclusions in said studies were. And, BTW, your vehemence
and aggressively accusatory tone — a typical Trumplican tactic —!tells me that you may very well have a commercial connection or other special self-interest in the promotion of ultrasonic anti-fouling for boats and yachts. Thank you for reading and commenting. Cheers!
You have taken the initiative to publish on the subject of ultrasonic antifouling.
You have therefore made a tacit commitment to the public to offer a paper based on real knowledge and real work, if not specific expertise. You have also made a commitment to be loyal to logic, truth and sincerity, all with the humility that accompanies all honest and rational projects.
I don't see any of these commitments being honoured, other than to put forward your personal opinions on the basis of very little personal work and totally non-existent expertise.
I am neither paid nor hired in any way to compensate for your deficiencies, to limit your propensity to promote yourself, and it is not my mission to follow your writings in order to systematically debunk them.
Everyone will therefore have to take their own personal approach to questioning your statements and sources and take all the necessary precautions when reading your conclusions.
I am not competing with the latter, but rather warning the public about the quality of your comments and the background to them.
As for my declaration of personal interests, it is neither compulsory nor secret.
I have a personal interest in the business of a major brand of ultrasonic protection systems, which I won't name because I'm not making a promotional stunt here but a very strong warning on a subject that is very important for the ecology of the oceans.
If I were selling nicotine substitutes, I would also be very angry with all those who deny their effectiveness and therefore support the tobacco industry, because there are major effects for the common good at the end of our communications.
So that everyone understands where I stand, I spent several years checking out the real effects of ultrasound systems before getting involved in this business. I'm an engineer long before I was a retailer, and I'm only involved professionally in ‘virtuous’ projects. The impact of my work must be environmentally neutral or positive, and this is an imperative that I constantly check.
@Stefan - Thank you for your clarification of your commercial interest in and connection to ultrasonic anti-fouling — neither of which I have in the least. My primary responsibility is to my readers and subscribers. And that is to deliver my honest, considered opinion (yes, opinion ) on matters boating and yachting, based on my 40+ years in the industry.
.
I appreciate your feedback, but I notice that you have still not provided a single citation or link to a published, independent third-party study that confirms the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ultra-sonic anti fouling as applied to boats and yachts.
.
Just to be clear, I do not recommend the continuing use of biocidal anti-fouling as a general policy. But I am also concerned with the fact that a number of deficient sonic systems on the market may lull people into not pursuing better solutions, where they are available. So, I will continue to express my opinions in the service of my readers. And remain, in this matter, ready to take note of any substantive confirmed counter-opinion. Thank you for reading and commenting. Cheers!
If I recall correctly, ultrasonic systems have been used in a variety of non marine applications - underwater piping comes to mind - and has proven successful there.
Wally, that’s true. But on, for example, a fixed pipe intake or outlet, eliminating 85% of barnacle growth makes a huge difference over, say, 10 years. However, the equation is different for a vessel that hauls annually or every other year anyway.