sounders
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
mark wrote:
On Feb 23, 7:44 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
mark wrote:
A picture speaks 1000 words so here is a link to our industry with
pictures.
http://www.confederationcove.com/ima...bum.cfm?aid=13
As the mussel "socks" grow they become heavier and eventually will
touch bottom were predators such as starfish begin to eat the mussels.
We like to keep the socks approx. 1' off bottom, this means either
picking up the socks and looking for starfish, diving or using an
accurate sounder. The sounders I mention are able to run either 50 or
200khz, does this mean a dual frequency transducer should be available
or do I have to choose 50 or 200?
Got the idea now - interesting.

The Sitex is selectable, so select 50 KHz.

Is this muddy, rocky or sandy bottom we're talking about.
Mud
Then you definitely want 300 watts at 50 KHz.

You might want to check accuracy with a lead line for a few times just to
make sure - muddy bottoms can be tricky with a sounder depending on it's
density and what not.

That way you gage it's accuracy and get a feel for what is and isn't
bottom on the finder.

Why a 50 khz? We use the 50 for deep water and the 200 khz for shallower
water. He may be better off with a sounder from a bass fishing boat setup.
They are used a lot in shallower water. For a mount, I would weld a plate
on the side of the boat towards the front that you could attach the all
plastic transom mount xducer to.

A couple of reasons actually. A 200 KHz transducer will provide 45
degree coverage and a 50 KHz transducer will provide 60 degree coverage.
Lower frequency will give better definition of the bottom terrain at 300
watts. It's not detail he's looking for but the bottom. Plus, I assume
he operates in salt water.

He's also got a sensitivity option in which he can fine tune the signal
to his needs which would work better with 50 KHz in that application.