Good things, fish finders!

[slodger]

'Slodger, all my finders indicate a fish, one as a solid object, the other two as a fish shaped outline. Next time you are down this way I will happily show you.'

 

Mine too Peter. I'm not contesting anything you've said, although I'll admit I'm a tad sceptical about the validity of those fish shapes on my Garmin 100 screen.

 

I'm no physicist, and I'd be well out of my depth talking about the scientific detail of finders. However most of the high tech stuff I've seen written about echo sounders does seem to suggest that it would be nigh on impossible for them to record such detail as individual fish.

[Peter Waller]

jeepster:

science is very rarely proved wrong these days, and the science is definately on gerrys side here, as someone once said, ye cannae change the laws of physics

I have not suggest total accuracy, but the indications coming off the screen definately correspond to the profile above the water. Practical experience shows that it is a useful tool. Over the years I have had too many fish from the indicated target area to ignore what I see.

 

Jeepster, going off thread, slightly, I once remember Kodak telling me that something was impossible. That something was in common practice in the repro industry at that time. I'm sure you have also gone beyond what manufacturers suggest as the limitations of a process in your work.

[Peter Waller]

Errrr, Slodger, mine is a Garmin 100 too! Of the three the Eagle is probably the least definate in its depictation of a fish, but I still rely on it as a worthwhile tool. Give it a whirl next time you are on the water, nothing to loose.

 

Have any of you arguing against the use of a hand held transducer pointed across a river ever actually tried it?

 

[ 06. October 2005, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Ken L]

This subject has done before. I I recall, Newt posted an incredible image produced using side scanning sonar technology.

Peter. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

[argyll]

'Although reeds would no doubt show a fuzzy picture on the sounder screen, wouldn't anything solid between the reeds and the finder, for instance a pike, show up as a solid object?'

 

In a word 'no' The screen would simply show a confusion of 'snow' since the majority of the signals are now in the next county and not returning to the transducer to complete the circuit. A few stray pixels perhaps but those even on a good display like my Garmin 240 would be absolutely meaningless. My Garmin 100 is even worse, I just use it a speedometer and a quick refernce to where we are on the river, bottomwise that is.

 

The thing about bouncing off a solid surface is that it shows nothing. just solid tones at the bottom of a clear screen but its the solid tones and the clear screen that gives definition to everything else. Weeds, fish, debris etc.

[argyll]

'incredible image produced using side scanning sonar technology'

 

Incredible images can be produced using side scanning technology but not with the kind of technology that we are using here. You can fly to the moon but not in a Piper Commanche.

[Newt]

Peter Waller:

The transducer, that what sends the 'ping' through the water, can be handheld, or fixed to the end of a stick. That way it can be pointed just like using a torch. Instead of depth it will show you just how far the fish is from the far bank. So obvious I can't think why a manufacturer hasn't marketed such a set up.

http://www.fish-finder-review.com/bottom-l...sh-finder.shtml

[Peter Waller]

Which only goes to prove that someone has read my mind! Or that I know zilch about what's on the market!!

 

Mind you, I do know what my sounders are capable of!!

 

[ 06. October 2005, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[argyll]

Extract from that review.

 

'While the Fishin Buddy shows symbols indicating fish sizes from small to medium to large and at varying depths, it can misinterpret non-fish objects in shallow waters. We thought we had found a large shoal - it was only some floating garbage!' Nuff said.

 

[ 06. October 2005, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: argyll ]

[Peter Waller]

Who is Dave Batten?

http://www.hooklinks.co.uk/hl1002311221/pa...es/contact.html

 

Gerry, just try it before you condemn it, you might be surprised. However, I suspect that we can all guess the outcome of such a trial .

 

Ask any actor, reviews can be misleading!

 

[ 06. October 2005, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]