The Electronic Antifouling Debate

[Owly055]

I had not even heard of sonic or ultrasonic antifouling until I made an off hand comment with regard to the GGR race about how nice such a thing would be, and it dawned on me that if I thought of something, some else probably had too and actually tried it......Lo and Behold, it does exist, and some sailors claim it works great for them, and others equally vehemently claim it's an expensive hoax and doesn't work.   
      I don't accept that all those who claim that it has worked for them are liars or shills for the manufacturers, nor that those who say it did not work for them are liars, being paid off by the bottom paint manufactures and boatyards.   The question in my mind is WHY does it work for some people and not for others.   One particular individual who claims good success is in Queensland, which would seem an area where biofouling should be a big deal, but on the whole both advocates and detractors are spread throughout the same general latitudes as each other.
    Clearly it is not a complete solution in and of itself.   Just as clearly, as sonic vibration in the water around the hull is the operative principle and the hull must transmit that vibration, the construction of the hull is going to be a factor.  A plywood hull or a cored  hull would seem to be the worst candidates, and reading bears that out... those materials are going to dampen the vibrations.  Likewise the placement of bulkheads, etc, could be a factor.   a hull with a grid liner may be a poor candidate. 
      What seems obvious is that at this point it's a poop shoot.  Not enough research seems to have been done, and even the manufacturers cannot say "our system will work on boat X but not boat Y.   

     Interestingly there was another manufacturer that offered a system with electrodes suspended in the water along the hull and supposedly ionized the water adjacent to the hull and supposedly provided protection as a result......... for use at anchor or in a slip.   

     These systems are well worth researching and making work, not just for cost savings....  but for environmental reasons.   Bottom paints have caused real environmental damage in some crowded harbors, leading to restrictions in what can be in them. 

      I would be interested in hearing accounts from folks who have tried these products...........there are quite a few of them available out there.


                                                                                                                      H.W.

[Godot]

I looked into these a few years ago. At the time the manufacturers I found were pretty much garage operations and had all closed shop. The tech was expensive, though if it worked up to potential the cost would eventually hit a break even, and even save money. Provided the sensors didn't die in the bilge, of course.

I seem to recall some people complaining of a faint but audible "tick tick tick". I guess it was annoying enough that they'd turn off the system at night.

I believe Delos now has something like this installed, along with a slick silicone bottom paint. It will be interesting to see how it fairs over a couple years.

I've been using ablative paint for years. It's quite effective. And probably not terribly environmentally sound. I'd really like to get off of it. I've been planning on going the Coppercoat route (also pretty expensive, especially given that the hull has to be stripped completely to the gel coat). There is also a lot of mixed opinions about that. It is non-leaching, so probably better environmentally that ablative. But, really, if the ultrasonic option was demonstrated effective, and a bit more affordable, I'd really prefer that as an option. I'm not happy with the normal choices.

[CharlieJ]

I've used ablative bottom paints for years. Here on the Texas coast I usually get three years from a haulout