Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
LD
 
Posts: n/a
Default Questions on fish finder

Can anyone tell me how beneficial a "dual beam 24/60 would be vs. a single
24deg?
Also, any opinion on the Hummingbird Matrix 17/20/25 finders?
Thanks,
LD
ì
  #2   Report Post  
BruceM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Questions on fish finder

Depends exactly what you use your sounder for.
The narrower the cone the more detail you'll read of the bottom. If you are
looking for "holes" to place cray pots etc then you need a narrow beam. On
the other hand to look for fish maybe a wide beam will give you more info of
what is "around" the boat & not just under it. Some of the wide ones will
even let you know if the fish is on the right or left side.
Therefore if you want both then get a "dual" beam one for sure.
Imagine a flat bottom with a 100 ft deep hole in the middle of it that is 10
ft across. If a "ping" from your sounder won't fit "inside" the hole then
you won't see it at all. The echo will return from the edge of the hole. Now
if you have (say) a one degree cone & it fits inside, then you'll see it. A
bit clearer?
BruceM


"LD" wrote in message
news
Can anyone tell me how beneficial a "dual beam 24/60 would be vs. a single
24deg?
Also, any opinion on the Hummingbird Matrix 17/20/25 finders?
Thanks,
LD
ì



  #3   Report Post  
wg992000
 
Posts: n/a
Default Questions on fish finder

Good explanation -
Could you explain why if I have a 240 Blue 200/50/dual, why I would use it
on anything but dual - if this apparently gives the best of both worlds - or
is there an advantage to one of the specific freq. thanks

"BruceM" wrote in message
...
Depends exactly what you use your sounder for.
The narrower the cone the more detail you'll read of the bottom. If you

are
looking for "holes" to place cray pots etc then you need a narrow beam. On
the other hand to look for fish maybe a wide beam will give you more info

of
what is "around" the boat & not just under it. Some of the wide ones will
even let you know if the fish is on the right or left side.
Therefore if you want both then get a "dual" beam one for sure.
Imagine a flat bottom with a 100 ft deep hole in the middle of it that is

10
ft across. If a "ping" from your sounder won't fit "inside" the hole then
you won't see it at all. The echo will return from the edge of the hole.

Now
if you have (say) a one degree cone & it fits inside, then you'll see it.

A
bit clearer?
BruceM


"LD" wrote in message
news
Can anyone tell me how beneficial a "dual beam 24/60 would be vs. a

single
24deg?
Also, any opinion on the Hummingbird Matrix 17/20/25 finders?
Thanks,
LD
ì





  #4   Report Post  
BruceM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Questions on fish finder

Do you want me to repeat all I wrote?
200 (ithink) is narrow for better bottom reading.
50 is wider & better for reading fish in area.
Both together will not be much dif that 50 on it's own.
On some sounders 50 will be limited in ability to go DEEP & read bottom. So
in deep water using both (dual) might increase bottom echo.
The main dif is your ability to use & read the sounder.
For the few bucks more, I reckon you should maybe get it & learn how to get
the maximum out of it.
BruceM


"wg992000" wrote in message
t...
Good explanation -
Could you explain why if I have a 240 Blue 200/50/dual, why I would use it
on anything but dual - if this apparently gives the best of both worlds -

or
is there an advantage to one of the specific freq. thanks

"BruceM" wrote in message
...
Depends exactly what you use your sounder for.
The narrower the cone the more detail you'll read of the bottom. If you

are
looking for "holes" to place cray pots etc then you need a narrow beam.

On
the other hand to look for fish maybe a wide beam will give you more

info
of
what is "around" the boat & not just under it. Some of the wide ones

will
even let you know if the fish is on the right or left side.
Therefore if you want both then get a "dual" beam one for sure.
Imagine a flat bottom with a 100 ft deep hole in the middle of it that

is
10
ft across. If a "ping" from your sounder won't fit "inside" the hole

then
you won't see it at all. The echo will return from the edge of the hole.

Now
if you have (say) a one degree cone & it fits inside, then you'll see

it.
A
bit clearer?
BruceM


"LD" wrote in message
news
Can anyone tell me how beneficial a "dual beam 24/60 would be vs. a

single
24deg?
Also, any opinion on the Hummingbird Matrix 17/20/25 finders?
Thanks,
LD
ì







  #5   Report Post  
Bruce in Alaska
 
Posts: n/a
Default Questions on fish finder

In article ,
"BruceM" wrote:

Do you want me to repeat all I wrote?
200 (ithink) is narrow for better bottom reading.
50 is wider & better for reading fish in area.
Both together will not be much dif that 50 on it's own.
On some sounders 50 will be limited in ability to go DEEP & read bottom. So
in deep water using both (dual) might increase bottom echo.
The main dif is your ability to use & read the sounder.
For the few bucks more, I reckon you should maybe get it & learn how to get
the maximum out of it.
BruceM


Actually your conclusions above are a bit missleading.
200 Khz will actually deliniate individual targets
much better than 50Khz due to it's higher frequency and
shorter wavelength. The Rule of Thumb for sonar is:
The higher the frequency the better resolution of targets.
The lower the frequency the deeper the signal can go.
200 Khz machines can't see down farther than 100 Fathoms
in most cases, but can resolve individual fish easily.
50 Khz machines can see down to 1000 fathoms but can't
resolve anything smaller than a cabin. North Pacific
Crab fisherman use 28 Khz machines so as to get excellent
bottom resolution at extreme depth, but they don't expect
to actually see anything other than the profile of the bottom.

Bruce in alaska
--
add a 2 before @


  #6   Report Post  
BruceM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Questions on fish finder

Woops.......... knew I'd get it the wrong way.
BruceM



"Bruce in Alaska" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"BruceM" wrote:

Do you want me to repeat all I wrote?
200 (ithink) is narrow for better bottom reading.
50 is wider & better for reading fish in area.
Both together will not be much dif that 50 on it's own.
On some sounders 50 will be limited in ability to go DEEP & read bottom.

So
in deep water using both (dual) might increase bottom echo.
The main dif is your ability to use & read the sounder.
For the few bucks more, I reckon you should maybe get it & learn how to

get
the maximum out of it.
BruceM


Actually your conclusions above are a bit missleading.
200 Khz will actually deliniate individual targets
much better than 50Khz due to it's higher frequency and
shorter wavelength. The Rule of Thumb for sonar is:
The higher the frequency the better resolution of targets.
The lower the frequency the deeper the signal can go.
200 Khz machines can't see down farther than 100 Fathoms
in most cases, but can resolve individual fish easily.
50 Khz machines can see down to 1000 fathoms but can't
resolve anything smaller than a cabin. North Pacific
Crab fisherman use 28 Khz machines so as to get excellent
bottom resolution at extreme depth, but they don't expect
to actually see anything other than the profile of the bottom.

Bruce in alaska
--
add a 2 before @



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fishing Buddy fish finder...>> Marty S. General 8 June 11th 04 02:35 PM
Suggestions with my humminbird fish finder Habda General 4 April 20th 04 04:35 PM
row boat fish finder calhoun General 8 March 20th 04 05:41 PM
Humminbird 300TX fish finder, depth finder Opinion survey please. Joe Boater Electronics 1 December 31st 03 07:52 PM
The problem with these off-topic, political threads... Joe Parsons General 99 September 10th 03 04:42 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017