I certainly would, having bought two boats with blisters. They didn't get much worse from the time I bought them until I could afford a "proper" bottom job. I still have not had the job done on the current boat. Having a "valid" survey could certainly be used as leverage to get a lowered purchase price or even decide that the vessel was not for you!!! D C "Mac" Macdonald m/v Another Adventure 1995 Carver 355 Aft Cabin p.s. As I am not a member of the "Trawlering" list, you may wish to cross-post this message to that list. -- "Bob Austin" <thataway4@cox.net> wrote: Marine survey techniques have lagged way behind modern technology. My question is are you boaters willing to spend a few more dollars (lets say $4 a foot, or 160 dollars on a 40 foot boat) during the survey to have a comprehensive examination of the hull laminate structure? Techniques include , but are not limited to, thermal imaging, and ultrasonic testing. These will show where repairs have been done, if there is water intrusion, weakness in the hull structure, hidden blisters and voids, core delamination and a host of other problems. (For example thermal imaging of electrical systems will show areas of defects). Up to now the equipment for these tests will have cost in the range of $15,000. There are few surveyors who are trained in these techniques or who use this equipment. I am working with an expert non-destructive testing designer, and we believe that we can bring the cost of equipment and training to a fraction of its current costs and achieve better results. For example, in less time than "sounding" with a coin or phenolic hammer, a complete computer analysis of the laminates of the entire boat would be accomplished. Disclosure, we are both retired and not in this to make a profit; however, the company which manufactures the equipment will make a profit (we hope). The equipment will be validated with destructive testing (mostly hurricane damaged boats) - but we may be also interested in testing (at our expense) boats with known problems for a baseline. Questions: Would you be willing to pay more for these tests? Would you want to know if your hull had these defects? Would you consider these tests on a new hull? If you had a hull with problems (as frequently noted on these boards) would you use these types of tests to document your position from a legal standpoint? What negatives do you see with this type of testing? Any suggestions? Thank you! Bob Austin