Well, lets face it, shark shield need help...their current device looks like a Hoover attached to the board....

In all seriousness though I reckon this is very disappointing.

This is a disgraceful waste of taxpayers dough. 300k will be wasted getting their system to work instead of being put into actual testing of the device. I'm sure Dave could put this money to a far better use.

Legion said..

Such noobs. Putting electrodes in fins? Fins are supposed to flex. They better not be too restrictive of fins. And what, are they going to market their own fins with a few crappy CSIRO templates and plastic construction? What about fin systems, which will they support? And what about single fins? If the fins are wired up, how do you remove and refit them while making the connection? Any connection is a source of corrosion and signal loss.

I cant say to much but I initially went for a fin electrode system in june 2012 and still have the original board with it , as you said Legion there was to many headaches involved and needed to be simplified from a manufacture and surfers point of view.

Dave need to change your preferred moniker from Network or katana to Dr or Associate professor ....funding for a working design will then flood in

From a learned colleague of associate professorship in dumb****erey!!!

AN attempt to create surfboard fins that have shark repellent qualities has been awarded $300,000 over two years under the State Government's in its bid to reduce shark attacks. The project was announced in the second round of funding for research under the Shark Mitigation Strategy. WA Company Shark Shield will receive the $300,000 to develop new surfboard fins with in-built electronic shark deterrent. The plan is to create fins that can be retrofitted to modern surfboards. A project managed by Dr Christine Erbe at Curtin University's Centre for Marine Science and Technology would also receive $130,124 over three years to develop systems that mask those noises of beachgoers, including swimmers and surfers, that attract sharks. Premier Colin Barnett said the University of Western Australia will receive funding for two projects. A project led by Shane Chambers will get $252,417 to develop an acoustic system to detect sharks as they approach beaches. Associate Professor Nathan Hart will lead a $284,620 project to define the actual visual, electrical and vibrational cues that trigger shark attacks. This work will allow the design of shark deterrents based on knowledge of what causes shark attacks. Last year Prof Hart received $222,221 in the first round of funding to explore bubble curtains, strobe lighting and sub aquatic sounds

Wow it's easy to get "funding" ain't it start a "school"

if your company has wealthy directors why would it need tax payers $$$$ to fund it

mmm,,, don't fight it,,, maybe just put your hand up..
although paperwork and distraction probably not worth the drama ..
stuff the academics,,, just go sell more, and maybe pick up a silent partner with some money to help marketing devt...
Product is there now,,, you've already done it,,, a plan, distribution network, and range all thats required...
Good luck in 2014,,,go Dave !!

^^
make sure you send some pics and video link , and make it look like the government could be wasting more taxpayers money?

Yeah they want a system that won't interfere with how the board handles. So they have given money to a company that doesn't surf to develope one and ignored Katannas product that already does what they want and is Also wa local.

See this is what pisses me off about this issue. No common sense is being employed.

^. magic.

trevor1 said..

Hi Guys,

without belittling Katana's efforts in having a go, but what independent/objective/rigid scientific testing has Katana done on his product?

Whilst the results on the SharkShield are far from conclusive, at least it appears to me that proper scientific testing has been done.

With respect, I don't see that sticking a bait over the side of a boat with a video camera or surfing at Alki meets the requisite test. Or, is the product the same technology (in terms of the electric field), but different in terms of how it is fitted? If the same technology, I thought the technology was the subject of a patent?

Please don't take this post as a flame, I am just trying to introduce some objectivity and I am happy to stand corrected. I am also posting as a very interested bystander: I am recovering from an injury but definitely looking at a shark deterrent for when I return to the water.

Cheers

Trevor

always good for interest to be shown and Im all for everything being above board as far as details go

As far as testing goes, surfing at the Alki was never a site for testing ? and hanging baits over the side of a boat is not my thing. Professional fishermen with extensive knowledge were used in documented testing with units installed in boards, with large predatory sharks in frenzied conditions. The boards were baited and also had a set of wetsuit covered legs over its sides creating a more real life situation. We are not infringing on any patent and have our own patent in place Just one of the out of control expenses involved in development of this product

I stand by surfsafe 100% We are dedicated to continual testing and scientific research and welcome any input that is productive . So if you happen to have a spare $300 000 floating around I would love the call So far sea breezers have been my strongest backers . Surfsafe is designed to be user friendly and part of a positive solution to the issues at hand.

Hope you recover from your injury soon I myself am 15 weeks in from trying to rip my foot from my leg doing a floater at Ders not the Alki
Feel free to drop in and have a chat my door is always open unless I'm surfing

Oldmate78 said..

trevor1 said...
Hi Guys,

without belittling Katana's efforts in having a go, but what independent/objective/rigid scientific testing has Katana done on his product?

Whilst the results on the SharkShield are far from conclusive, at least it appears to me that proper scientific testing has been done.

With respect, I don't see that sticking a bait over the side of a boat with a video camera or surfing at Alki meets the requisite test. Or, is the product the same technology (in terms of the electric field), but different in terms of how it is fitted? If the same technology, I thought the technology was the subject of a patent?

Please don't take this post as a flame, I am just trying to introduce some objectivity and I am happy to stand corrected. I am also posting as a very interested bystander: I am recovering from an injury but definitely looking at a shark deterrent for when I return to the water.

Cheers

Trevor...I'm sure Dave will respond but I believe it is a very similar technology to shark shield, only modified to suit use in a surfboard. Watching the video on the website it seems Dave may have changed the pulse frequency from the shark shield version, based on results from testing (note that some tests of the shark shield unit have shown that great whites can get within the field and take the bait, but the shield does slow the sharks significantly: ie the sharks took twice as long to take the bait, compared to no shield). The shark shield version is totally impractical for surfers and it is obvious a surfer didnt design it. It's nice to have someone who surfs regularly (katana) design a unit that is practical for use on a surfboard. I believe your question is the very reason Dave should have been given the 300k,,,,he has spent a lot of time and money to develop, market and test a product that Is getting excellent reviews from surfers....now all that is needed is money for further scientific testing and validation. Why give that money to a company (shark shield) that surfers have effectively refused to use? Silly in my opinion, but I guess at least it shows a willingness of the government to do something. They (ie Barnet and co) may just need some guidance from WA surfers as to who we think should receive the money.

Cheers Oldmate78 As I said Sea Breezers are my best supporters
Would anyone happen to know Barnetts avatar

Trevor...yes you are coming across as a dickhead (just joking )
There are no guarantees in life mate but the device reduces the risk, and that is good enough for me. Even if it only gives you more time to get out of the water before getting chomped it is worth it, and at half the price of shark shield is a bargain.
By the way I have no affiliation with katana...I don't even own one of his boards but my bro got the surf safe unit installed as a present for me and I am we'll and truely sold on it.

trevor1 said..

katana said..

trevor1 said..



Hi Guys,



without belittling Katana's efforts in having a go, but what independent/objective/rigid scientific testing has Katana done on his product?



Whilst the results on the SharkShield are far from conclusive, at least it appears to me that proper scientific testing has been done.



With respect, I don't see that sticking a bait over the side of a boat with a video camera or surfing at Alki meets the requisite test. Or, is the product the same technology (in terms of the electric field), but different in terms of how it is fitted? If the same technology, I thought the technology was the subject of a patent?



Please don't take this post as a flame, I am just trying to introduce some objectivity and I am happy to stand corrected. I am also posting as a very interested bystander: I am recovering from an injury but definitely looking at a shark deterrent for when I return to the water.



Cheers

Trevor

always good for interest to be shown and Im all for everything being above board as far as details go

As far as testing goes, surfing at the Alki was never a site for testing ? and hanging baits over the side of a boat is not my thing. Professional fishermen with extensive knowledge were used in documented testing with units installed in boards, with large predatory sharks in frenzied conditions. The boards were baited and also had a set of wetsuit covered legs over its sides creating a more real life situation. We are not infringing on any patent and have our own patent in place Just one of the out of control expenses involved in development of this product

I stand by surfsafe 100% We are dedicated to continual testing and scientific research and welcome any input that is productive . So if you happen to have a spare $300 000 floating around I would love the call So far sea breezers have been my strongest backers . Surfsafe is designed to be user friendly and part of a positive solution to the issues at hand.

Hope you recover from your injury soon I myself am 15 weeks in from trying to rip my foot from my leg doing a floater at Ders not the Alki

Feel free to drop in and have a chat my door is always open unless I'm surfing

My Alki comment came from a post from someone (can't recall you or someone else) made re testing it surfing at offshore breaks (or something like that). Anyway (and again), was not intending to flame.

And, whilst I appreciate that you have tested your product, my point/query is to what extent does your testing stand up to rigourous scientific testing?

Whilst I may be coming across as a d1ckhead on this, and whilst you may stand by your product 100%, as Bolgo asked, do you offer a life (or arm and leg) guarantee? In other words, given the spate of attacks lately, and with little kids, I am pretty keen to ask all the right questions before investing the hard earned on a shark deterrent.

Otherwise ...

Injury going ok. Had a rotator cuff repair, so probably 4-6 months out.

And I will definitely drop in, as I also need a repair done on an epoxy board.

Cheers

Ok,,, good point,, so whats the Australian Standard it should be tested to?.. are there some NATA folks around to help out?
Shark frenzy is good enough for me at the moment.. until someone comes up with some decent accepted standards for testing a shark deterrent.
NATA test rig should be an interesting one..

Scientific testing would be something alonng these lines in my respectfully opinion:

www.sardi.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/173876/Risk_Assessment_of_the_Shark_Shield_Report_-_FINAL_19_06_2012.pdf

As you can see, the shark shield is far from being a proven deterrent.,

trevor1 said..


Scientific testing would be something alonng these lines in my respectfully opinion:

www.sardi.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/173876/Risk_Assessment_of_the_Shark_Shield_Report_-_FINAL_19_06_2012.pdf

As you can see, the shark shield is far from being a proven deterrent.,

Interesting,,, it looks like it was done for Safework SA..

Pretty inconclusive, and not exactly what you would call exhaustive. The "standards " they used were not too dissimilar to Dave's, maybe apart from the addition of some fake seals? wt?.. I'm not sure whether they even collected as much video as Katana.

Easy read though,, and make sure you check the one page executive summary,,, and a line near the bottom...


<div data-angle="0" data-font-name="Helvetica" data-canvas-width="8.007680145263672">"The results showed that the deterrent had an effect on the behaviour of white sharks, but did not deter or repel them in all situations"

maaaaate,,, Dave's got my vote.. I've seen his videos..

In the end, its a bit like someone once told me;
Its like seat belts and air bags.
Do the manufacturers give you a guarantee against death or injury?,,, and how many times you gonna crash your car?

I reckon the more that fasten up.. perhaps the more they'll stay away from surf breaks.,,, especially high risk ones during whale migration season..
and perhaps we won't have to shoot or net them along with the collateral damage no-one wants.