Has anyone got one? Used one?

Thoughts?

Select to expand quote

SP said..
Has anyone got one? Used one?

Thoughts?

I have spoken with people who use them. For long boarding they are not that bad apparently. If you don't want any drag or interference at all then currently Surfsafe is the best method. Even the Shark shield CEO Lindsey Lyon stated that.

My only concern with the Shark shield is that the electrode must sink and be surrounded by water to be working correctly. So if a large shark was to swim by, if you start to move and the electrode then trails behind on the surface, its no longer working. I personally believe that makes for a rather large design flaw.

Go surfsafe and be done with it.. check the video.

If your definition of good is having a Hoover attached to the end of your shooter, then yes they are great

Select to expand quote

bjshack said..

My only concern with the Shark shield is that the electrode must sink and be surrounded by water to be working correctly. So if a large shark was to swim by, if you start to move and the electrode then trails behind on the surface, its no longer working.

I reckon it would still work just fine unless it were in the air. I doubt surface or submerged would make a difference.

Also, on another forum, an impartial user bought the two market leading devices and tested them in a number of ways, including (from memory) hooking them up to an oscilloscope to analyse their signal differences and testing them by zapping himself and a GWS. The GWS was noticeably more reluctant to approach one device over the other, from memory. It was actually really well done.

Will be interesting to see shark shields new device in the new year - hope they make it practical for surfers this time - legion can you PM me the link to that forum?

Select to expand quote

Ctngoodvibes said...
If your definition of good is having a Hoover attached to the end of your shooter, then yes they are great

Hoover?

If you mean the antennae, then yeah, that is the only real drawback I can see hence the question about how they work, does it zap you heaps, get tangled up??

JB
The submerged thing I'm happy about after speaking to them..
The thing would need to be out of the water, I don't paddle that quick.

Select to expand quote

quirkus said...
Go surfsafe and be done with it.. check the video.

Yeah have looked at them so wanted a comparison to the others
If it was interchangeable I'd have one already.
A few boards including install is a bit steep..

Anyone have n idea of when the new surfboard shark shield will be released?

Select to expand quote

SP said...

Ctngoodvibes said...
If your definition of good is having a Hoover attached to the end of your shooter, then yes they are great

Hoover?

If you mean the antennae, then yeah, that is the only real drawback I can see hence the question about how they work, does it zap you heaps, get tangled up??

JB
The submerged thing I'm happy about after speaking to them..
The thing would need to be out of the water, I don't paddle that quick.

Yes it does cause drag get tangled up and zap you quite regulary. It's crap for surfers but I believe it would deter a shark. I got one back when we had about 4 attacks back to back but have since changed to surf safe. If shark shield release a version that is practical for surfers I would be open to going back to them.

Select to expand quote

SP said..

Ctngoodvibes said...
If your definition of good is having a Hoover attached to the end of your shooter, then yes they are great

Hoover?

If you mean the antennae, then yeah, that is the only real drawback I can see hence the question about how they work, does it zap you heaps, get tangled up??

JB
The submerged thing I'm happy about after speaking to them..
The thing would need to be out of the water, I don't paddle that quick.

Yeah okay i was just explaining it as how it works. They have told me before that for the unit to be fully working the antenna needs to be submerged and they also agreed if moving at speed it becomes less effective. The reason i asked is a Abalone diver was attacked and killed whilst wearing his shark shield. The coroners report determined that because the antenna was fitted to his air hose and therefor on the surface, the product it was ineffective in its operation, (Because it was not submerged) even though turned on

As far as I'm aware the new Shark Shield unit they were still fundraising (wanting $1.3 million from memory) to finish the product. Maybe SP did you ask them about the time frame when you spoke with them

Select to expand quote

Legion said..

bjshack said..

My only concern with the Shark shield is that the electrode must sink and be surrounded by water to be working correctly. So if a large shark was to swim by, if you start to move and the electrode then trails behind on the surface, its no longer working.

I reckon it would still work just fine unless it were in the air. I doubt surface or submerged would make a difference.

Also, on another forum, an impartial user bought the two market leading devices and tested them in a number of ways, including (from memory) hooking them up to an oscilloscope to analyse their signal differences and testing them by zapping himself and a GWS. The GWS was noticeably more reluctant to approach one device over the other, from memory. It was actually really well done.

If the company making the product says it needs to be submerged what makes you think it will work when not?

Id also be keen to see the results of the testing you talked about, could you share it here..

bjshack, the master of false alternative.

"Not submerged" is not equal to "on the surface".

I would assume that the unit works fine on the surface trailing behind a board. I would assume it doesn't work if you lift it out of the water. And by work, I mean transmit a signal through the water. Because it would be difficult to transmit through air, into the water and onwards. But it wouldn't be difficult from the surface, into the water and onwards. Makes sense?

Select to expand quote

Legion said..
bjshack, the master of false alternative.

"Not submerged" is not equal to "on the surface".

I would assume that the unit works fine on the surface trailing behind a board. I would assume it doesn't work if you lift it out of the water. And by work, I mean transmit a signal through the water. Because it would be difficult to transmit through air, into the water and onwards. But it wouldn't be difficult from the surface, into the water and onwards. Makes sense?

I have no idea what your idea of a false alternative is about. I have no problem if you say it works, i was just curious why you think the manufacturer got it wrong. The wording they use is "The antenna needs to sink underwater to be active". I have no problem with that, and I'm really unsure why you say they have it wrong, but hey thats your issue.

How about sharing the site that you said tested the two products on themselves and great whites, at least that sounds interesting to the discussion IMHO..

If you download the User manual for Shark Shield it even mentions the need for the antenna to be underwater.

Page 15



I guess the idea is if your paddling slowly, it will remain underwater. I have no idea i just figured if a large shark swam past me, id be paddling rather quickly. Maybe Ctngoodvibes who used one could answer. How fast did you need to paddle for the electrode to be out of the water

There are plenty of issues with their design from a surfing perspective but being on the surface or completely submerged wouldn't be one of them, if I apply my tiny bit of electrical knowledge. I'd say that's for covering their arses.

Take a simple circuit like this *, with a car battery hooked up to a 12V light globe and a bucket of water, probably with a couple of cups of salt in it.



Submerge the free lead from the globe into the bucket, submerge the free lead from the battery into the bucket. Globe glows.

Touch the lead from the globe to the surface of the water in the bucket, touch the lead from the battery to the surface of the water. Globe glows.

Leave the lead from the globe in the air. Leave the lead from the battery in the air. Globe doesn't glow.

The salt water is the conductor. The resistance difference between submerged and surface should be negligible, provided the circuit contact area is enough (and I would count a full trailing probe as "enough"). Air is not a conductor at these currents and voltages.

* Don't do this. Theoretically this should work but I haven't tried.

Select to expand quote

Legion said..
There are plenty of issues with their design from a surfing perspective but being on the surface or completely submerged wouldn't be one of them, if I apply my tiny bit of electrical knowledge. I'd say that's for covering their arses.

Take a simple circuit like this *, with a car battery hooked up to a 12V light globe and a bucket of water, probably with a couple of cups of salt in it.



Submerge the free lead from the globe into the bucket, submerge the free lead from the battery into the bucket. Globe glows.

Touch the lead from the globe to the surface of the water in the bucket, touch the lead from the battery to the surface of the water. Globe glows.

Leave the lead from the globe in the air. Leave the lead from the battery in the air. Globe doesn't glow.

The salt water is the conductor. The resistance difference between submerged and surface should be negligible, provided the circuit contact area is enough (and I would count a full trailing probe as "enough"). Air is not a conductor at these currents and voltages.

* Don't do this. Theoretically this should work but I haven't tried.

Im not arguing the fact that it may work. I wouldn't even go into trying to prove or disprove it, i was just quoting what they (the manufacturer)say. AND ill repeat my original comment it seems a little flawed IMHO going on the companies own comments and their user guidelines. If it works or not on the surface I'm not fazed really. I originally was interested in an attack whilst someone was wearing one, but the coroners findings as to the unit being worn during an attack was answered and i moved on after reading the company warnings/guidelines and suggested use.

Can we move on from they say it won't work and you say it will, to share the tests you mentioned. Id be really keen to read them seriously as I'm sure others would also.

Sometimes you should think for yourself rather than just listening to what people tell you or believing what you read. Especially because a lot of the time you are listening or reading what marketers are telling you. And knowing how marketing works, well ...

Oh, and anyone trying my circuit probably best to take some safety precautions. Dry skin is resistant enough that you can hold opposing battery terminals and nothing happens (although I never feel comfortable doing it). Wet skin, salty wet skin I'm 99% sure is not and you'll get severely zapped, maybe enough to kill you. So either ensure that your hands and the parts of the wires you're holding are dry as a dead dingo's arse or insulate yourself. Insulated tongs/pliers to hold the wires, thick rubber gloves, etc. And don't splash the water around.

Select to expand quote

Legion said..
Sometimes you should think for yourself rather than just listening to what people tell you or believing what you read. Especially because a lot of the time you are listening or reading what marketers are telling you. And knowing how marketing works, well ...

Are you serous, thats a rather funny comment regarding the issue we are discussing. The company that sells the product says it won't work.

Its your call to go ahead and disprove them, BUT Shark Shield say the electrode/antenna must be submerged to work. Yet your saying they are wrong and people shouldn't bother with their recommendation of their own product

You will argue any stance you can, as long as its different to mine Legion...

Companies I've worked for the marketers sell products that don't even exist yet. And might not ever. Sometimes the marketers determine product direction "oh yeah, we've said this at an expo/on our glossy brochures so now you have to build it". That's not unusual. You're a salesman, salesmen are renowned for it. "Renovator's delight" "ocean glimpses".

Electrical theory says it will work and you can test with a basic circuit to learn for yourself if it does/doesn't. Think for yourself, don't listen to me, marketers, salesmen.

FWIW the tests I referred to pretty much had the devices on the surface and they worked just fine according to that impartial tester and the impartial test subject.

Select to expand quote

bjshack said..
You will argue any stance you can, as long as its different to mine Legion...

That's because you're always wrong

Select to expand quote

bjshack said..
The company that sells the product says it won't work.

No they don't. It says if one or both electrodes is in the air it won't work, same as my circuit.

It says they need to be fully submerged to function correctly. But I'll betcha they work fine on the surface. Like the other tester found. Like my circuit would.

But continue believing what you want as long as it follows your agenda.

Select to expand quote

Legion said..

bjshack said..
You will argue any stance you can, as long as its different to mine Legion...

That's because you're always wrong

Or in this case your saying Shark Shield are wrong about their own product

My agenda is not on question here. Someone asked about the product and its being discussed. Your the one claiming the manufacture is wrong. Whats your agenda

Select to expand quote

Legion said..
Companies I've worked for the marketers sell products that don't even exist yet. And might not ever. Sometimes the marketers determine product direction "oh yeah, we've said this at an expo/on our glossy brochures so now you have to build it". That's not unusual. You're a salesman, salesmen are renowned for it. "Renovator's delight" "ocean glimpses".

Electrical theory says it will work and you can test with a basic circuit to learn for yourself if it does/doesn't. Think for yourself, don't listen to me, marketers, salesmen.

FWIW the tests I referred to pretty much had the devices on the surface and they worked just fine according to that impartial tester and the impartial test subject.

You must work for some dodgy companies if they are advertising and selling products that don't even exist

Is the impartial test you talk about the same type of product you your company sells..One that doesn't exist

Yes. Yes, I'm Dave and/or Lindsay.

Get Ctngoodvibes to fill a bath with 1mm of water and put the thing in. Might work, might not. Repeat with 2mm, 3mm, ..., submerged. Bet it works long before it's submerged.

Bet your initial statement is wrong:

Select to expand quote

bjshack said..
My only concern with the Shark shield is that the electrode must sink and be surrounded by water to be working correctly. So if a large shark was to swim by, if you start to move and the electrode then trails behind on the surface, its no longer working.

I'll bet it still works trailing behind on the surface.

My agenda is making fun of your expertise.

Ha ha you guys are funny. Thanks for the pm legion.
FYI the trailing cable on the shark shield is relatively heavy and sinks quite easily. In my view it would always be submerged when paddling and therefore should be working. When you are on a wave it's a different story. All this is useless information anywAy coz the device is too annoying to use.

Select to expand quote

Legion said..
Yes. Yes, I'm Dave and/or Lindsay.

Get Ctngoodvibes to fill a bath with 1mm of water and put the thing in. Might work, might not. Repeat with 2mm, 3mm, ..., submerged. Bet it works long before it's submerged.

Bet your initial statement is wrong:

bjshack said..
My only concern with the Shark shield is that the electrode must sink and be surrounded by water to be working correctly. So if a large shark was to swim by, if you start to move and the electrode then trails behind on the surface, its no longer working.

I'll bet it still works trailing behind on the surface.

My agenda is making fun of your expertise.

Not my expertise mate, I'm just quoting the manufacturer of the product. Ill give up as it seems you can't read what has been posted, but its all their, a direct quote from their Product manual that shows my quote you just shared, is 100% right.

You say they are wrong, thats your call

All i know is your fanciable report you claim is obviously crap..That i expected..

Select to expand quote

Ctngoodvibes said..
Ha ha you guys are funny. Thanks for the pm legion.
FYI the trailing cable on the shark shield is relatively heavy and sinks quite easily. In my view it would always be submerged when paddling and therefore should be working. When you are on a wave it's a different story. All this is useless information anywAy coz the device is too annoying to use.

Thanks for that, a question after reading some more today on it, did you ever get a zap when paddling

Im assuming you tried it on a short board

Thanks

Ha ha yes JB - had it wrap around my waist and zap my balls for what seemed an eternity until I could pull it off. I now have a voice like James blunt
Surf safe has zapped me once or twice but that's over a couple of years of use. Shark shield zap would be say 5 in a 1 hour session.

*scoff*

Of course he didn't. It was trailing behind on the surface. How could he possibly get zapped? Didn't you read the marketing?

Ctn, no problem. Hope you enjoyed the fanciable crap report. I thought he did a good job and it was quite informative.

Select to expand quote

Legion said..
*scoff*

Of course he didn't. It was trailing behind on the surface. How could he possibly get zapped? Didn't you read the marketing?

Ctn, no problem. Hope you enjoyed the fanciable crap report. I thought he did a good job and it was quite informative.

You should send your fanciable report to Lindsay, prove him he is wrong also

Full of **** you are sunshine..