Announcement

**Tod** · 08-13-1999, 11:41 PM

Re: Materials for transducers

Patrick,

I like closer range, finer detail. I work in 30 to 80 feet of water. I like 500 Khz. Bob I think likes 250.

**Patrick** · 08-14-1999, 12:18 AM

Re: Materials for transducers

Tod,

I don't think the depth matters all that much (just need longer cable). Sture found the sub with a "500 Khz" and I thought that was around 150'.

Depths I am interested in range from 30' to 300'.

Personally, I think that the 250 Khz might be a real nice tradeoff between the detail of a 500 and the range of a 100. I just wonder why I have not seen any commercial units with a "250" or similar?

Sture ... do you think that you will get that much better detail in a "500" vs. a "250"?

Patrick

**Patrick** · 08-14-1999, 12:26 AM

Re: Materials for transducers

I went back to look at Sture's prior e-mail on this subject ...

"200K I got a range of 200 meters, good signal level and ok resolution."

"500K good resolution and 100 m range."

To me, it looks like Sture did not notice that much better resolution on the 500. The extra range is much nicer to have and will cut your "passes" in half. Also, Sture seems to have tested the whole range and felt that the 200 or 250 would be ideal.

Tod, why do you feel the 500 Khz is more appropriate?

Patrick

**rick** · 09-27-1999, 10:45 AM

Re: Answer for Rick

Follow Ups:[/url]

**rick** · 09-27-1999, 10:45 AM

Re: Answer for Rick

Follow Ups:[/url]

**rick** · 09-27-1999, 10:45 AM

Re: Answer for Rick

Follow Ups:[/url]

**rick** · 09-27-1999, 10:50 AM

Re: Ideomotor response

Follow Ups:[/url]

**rick** · 09-27-1999, 10:50 AM

Re: Ideomotor response

Follow Ups:[/url]

**rick** · 09-27-1999, 10:50 AM

Re: Ideomotor response

Follow Ups:[/url]

**rick** · 09-27-1999, 09:25 PM