12-17-2002, 04:22 PM
Roads post about fish finders got me doing some math and some home work. Now, if you dont like long technical info posts you can probably stop reading now. But, if you are interested in a neat look at fish finders and are looking into buying one you may find this interesting. I certainly did, and am hopeing some of you can give me some insight into why things are the way they are.
Lets start with the lowrance x-91. It has 3000 watts of power, and sports the capability to go up to sixty degrees on the transducer cone angle. Wow. That means that at a depth of 25 feet you are looking at a circle on the bottom 29 feet in diameter. Thats a big chunk of water! At 50 ft you are looking at 58 feet on the bottom. 75 ft, 86 ft dia, and at 100 ft deep you are looking at a 115 foot diameter. Thats insane! With 240 vertical and 240 horizontal pixels, you may wonder if with 3000 watts of power you can even possibly pick up fish on the outside edge of your cone. If you can, how strong a signal is it, and with 240 pixels, what would it look like? That wide cone angle would be extra nice in shallow water, but I am seriously curious to test it out in the deep. Good thing skeeter just bought one for me to play with.
Now, lets look at the garmin 240. it has 4000 watts of power, and incredibly for the cost comes with a dual frequency transducer! That means you get a 45 degree angle cone, and a 20 degree angle cone. You still have the 240 x 240 pixels. For comparison sake, lets give out the diameters at bottom depths for the garmin. 45 degree trasducer- 25 ft down, 20 feet dia. 50 ft down, 41 ft dia, 75 deep 62 ft dia, and 100 deep, 83 dia. So, you would use your 45 in shallow water, and your 20 in the deep. Your 20 would give you at 25 deep, 9 ft dia, at 50 ft 17 dia, at 75 26 ft dia, and at 100 you would be looking at 35 ft dia. And all with a stronger siganl going down and coming back plus the same resolution on the screen.
Now, this is very interesting to me, I wonder if you start marking fish in 100 ft of water with a 60 degree transducer cone angle and the fish is on the out side edge of your cone, can it even see your lure? Well, that probably depends on water clarity ect. But the general idea remains the same. Are you trying to catch fish that cant see your lure?
Skeeter, open up your box and read the instructions on that bad boy. In the catalogs the x-91 and x-71 claim "up to 60 degrees with asp on" What does that mean? And if the regular cone angle is less than 60 degrees, let me know. I am very interested.
Another thing I did is work up some numbers on the fishin buddy two that is down in my basement. With a nine degree cone, and with its limited battery power source, it still has more effective use than I had thought. At 25 ft down, its at 4 ft in dia. Not very much to look at. But if you factor in its side finding capabilities and combine that with the depth feature you are covering a lot of water. 50 ft down, 8 ft dia, 100 ft 17 ft dia.
Heres the interesting part to me. On my lcx-15-mt I have 8000 watts of power, 480 x 350 pixels, and three cone angles, all of which are smaller than on the x-91 and garmin units. Why? Can someone please enlighten me. On the bow, my angle is 21 degrees. Very similar to the narrow angle on the garmin. on the back, I have a dual frequency that has a 12 degree and a 37 degree cone angle to choose from. But no where near a 45 or a sixty. I would think that with twice the power and twice the pixels, plus superior sound recieving transducers you would find a very wide option for shallow water and a mid range angle for your deep water use. But it doesnt seem to be the case. Granted I dont feel that I need to look at 115 feet of ground when in 100 ft of water. But I find the logic behind this very confusing. Dennis, walleye bob, any of you fish finder gurus, can you help me to understand why this is?
Now to throw a real wobbly into the mix. take your two top end bottom line units, your tournament master HR and your 5300. 18 degree and nine degree angles with five transducers. Only 240 vertical pixels and for some reason 400 horizontal. Why? And only 5200 watts of power. Decent cone angles but without the power and pixels to back it up. Plus no very wide angle option for shallow water. But, you can run your downriggers off it. I am very
. Why are the top of the line finders not equiped with all the options, and is that a good thing or a bad thing. Like I say, I am now very . For those of you who are considering buying a fish finder, you may have to work up some info, and determine what type of fishing you do to make the most possible educated decision before you pick one out of the many. I wouldnt know what to do if it was me. I got lucky and just bought mine figuring it was all I could ever want, now I find that I dont know why or why not to want what! confusing huh?
Can someone shed some light on what is good, bad, and why? All the finders are so different but come so close to the same thing. Lets get in depth and crazy with the technical stuff and the opinions.
Lets start with the lowrance x-91. It has 3000 watts of power, and sports the capability to go up to sixty degrees on the transducer cone angle. Wow. That means that at a depth of 25 feet you are looking at a circle on the bottom 29 feet in diameter. Thats a big chunk of water! At 50 ft you are looking at 58 feet on the bottom. 75 ft, 86 ft dia, and at 100 ft deep you are looking at a 115 foot diameter. Thats insane! With 240 vertical and 240 horizontal pixels, you may wonder if with 3000 watts of power you can even possibly pick up fish on the outside edge of your cone. If you can, how strong a signal is it, and with 240 pixels, what would it look like? That wide cone angle would be extra nice in shallow water, but I am seriously curious to test it out in the deep. Good thing skeeter just bought one for me to play with.
Now, lets look at the garmin 240. it has 4000 watts of power, and incredibly for the cost comes with a dual frequency transducer! That means you get a 45 degree angle cone, and a 20 degree angle cone. You still have the 240 x 240 pixels. For comparison sake, lets give out the diameters at bottom depths for the garmin. 45 degree trasducer- 25 ft down, 20 feet dia. 50 ft down, 41 ft dia, 75 deep 62 ft dia, and 100 deep, 83 dia. So, you would use your 45 in shallow water, and your 20 in the deep. Your 20 would give you at 25 deep, 9 ft dia, at 50 ft 17 dia, at 75 26 ft dia, and at 100 you would be looking at 35 ft dia. And all with a stronger siganl going down and coming back plus the same resolution on the screen.
Now, this is very interesting to me, I wonder if you start marking fish in 100 ft of water with a 60 degree transducer cone angle and the fish is on the out side edge of your cone, can it even see your lure? Well, that probably depends on water clarity ect. But the general idea remains the same. Are you trying to catch fish that cant see your lure?
Skeeter, open up your box and read the instructions on that bad boy. In the catalogs the x-91 and x-71 claim "up to 60 degrees with asp on" What does that mean? And if the regular cone angle is less than 60 degrees, let me know. I am very interested.
Another thing I did is work up some numbers on the fishin buddy two that is down in my basement. With a nine degree cone, and with its limited battery power source, it still has more effective use than I had thought. At 25 ft down, its at 4 ft in dia. Not very much to look at. But if you factor in its side finding capabilities and combine that with the depth feature you are covering a lot of water. 50 ft down, 8 ft dia, 100 ft 17 ft dia.
Heres the interesting part to me. On my lcx-15-mt I have 8000 watts of power, 480 x 350 pixels, and three cone angles, all of which are smaller than on the x-91 and garmin units. Why? Can someone please enlighten me. On the bow, my angle is 21 degrees. Very similar to the narrow angle on the garmin. on the back, I have a dual frequency that has a 12 degree and a 37 degree cone angle to choose from. But no where near a 45 or a sixty. I would think that with twice the power and twice the pixels, plus superior sound recieving transducers you would find a very wide option for shallow water and a mid range angle for your deep water use. But it doesnt seem to be the case. Granted I dont feel that I need to look at 115 feet of ground when in 100 ft of water. But I find the logic behind this very confusing. Dennis, walleye bob, any of you fish finder gurus, can you help me to understand why this is?
Now to throw a real wobbly into the mix. take your two top end bottom line units, your tournament master HR and your 5300. 18 degree and nine degree angles with five transducers. Only 240 vertical pixels and for some reason 400 horizontal. Why? And only 5200 watts of power. Decent cone angles but without the power and pixels to back it up. Plus no very wide angle option for shallow water. But, you can run your downriggers off it. I am very
. Why are the top of the line finders not equiped with all the options, and is that a good thing or a bad thing. Like I say, I am now very . For those of you who are considering buying a fish finder, you may have to work up some info, and determine what type of fishing you do to make the most possible educated decision before you pick one out of the many. I wouldnt know what to do if it was me. I got lucky and just bought mine figuring it was all I could ever want, now I find that I dont know why or why not to want what! confusing huh? Can someone shed some light on what is good, bad, and why? All the finders are so different but come so close to the same thing. Lets get in depth and crazy with the technical stuff and the opinions.