Author Topic: Maximum depth with Si. (Read 13259 times)

IRC Kevin · « **on:** September 13, 2009, 11:26:46 AM »

I'd heard that some have tried the Si at greater than 'spec' depths, so thought I'd give it a try yesterday and headed offf towards the North Basin, 'record' button pressed. I can definitely see bottom structure at 194 feet, but can't post a picture, as there seems to be some sort of annoying glitch with the recordings, as they won't convert with Son2Xtf, but will play with HUmviewer, though the pics with Humviewer are too dark to post.

RGecy · « **Reply #1 on:** September 13, 2009, 02:11:40 PM »

Take a snapshot while you are playing back on the unit. This will give us a good idea of what we will see on our unit as well.

Robert

IRC Kevin · « **Reply #2 on:** September 13, 2009, 02:52:20 PM »

Will do, Robert. I'm going back to the boat next weekend. I'm also going to try to re-save the recording onto my memory stick and see if it'll convert next time.
Best I can do for the moment are a couple of screenshots. Deepest point of the feature is 196 feet.

Details

Also a 2D screenshot of the feature.

Details

Humminbird_Greg · « **Reply #3 on:** September 14, 2009, 04:03:13 PM »

You may have the Si depth record!

IRC Kevin · « **Reply #4 on:** September 15, 2009, 02:09:39 PM »

Quote from: Humminbird_Greg on September 14, 2009, 04:03:13 PM

You may have the Si depth record!

Hi Greg,
Can you elaborate on this please? Do you mean that the Si shows the bottom trace as seen in the 2D view, but is not actually 'seeing' the bottom itself?
Recordings are very poor from this trip, Possibly due to heavy blue-green algae in the Lake- a bit like looking through a net curtain! It's difficult to say what's bottom and what's not, as the Lake floor is absolutely featureless silt in this area and there seems to be no difference between the picture I was getting at 60 feet and the picture at 196 feet!

Humminbird_Greg · « **Reply #5 on:** September 17, 2009, 10:27:33 AM »

IRC,
I was just meaning that that may have been the deepest that I have seen a Humminbird Si unit show any image of the bottom (I am assuming that the picture from HummViewer is showing this) even if it is just a trace.

IRC Kevin · « **Reply #6 on:** September 17, 2009, 11:55:05 AM »

Quote from: Humminbird_Greg on September 17, 2009, 10:27:33 AM

IRC,
I was just meaning that that may have been the deepest that I have seen a Humminbird Si unit show any image of the bottom (I am assuming that the picture from HummViewer is showing this) even if it is just a trace.

Doh! That's me being dense. I blame three weeks back at work after the Summer recess! Hopefully I'll get some more time in the deepest parts of the Lake when there's less algae in the water over Winter and see of I can find anything recognisable apart from the geography.

IRC Kevin · « **Reply #7 on:** September 19, 2009, 03:06:54 PM »

For Robert, snapshots from unit. (with fish finder view of probable Arctic Char as well !) Rock formation has a very strange profile for a glaciated trough.

Rickard · « **Reply #8 on:** September 19, 2009, 03:56:22 PM »

Let me guess... time for a towfish? I think all your images need follow up with close scanning from a towfish or diving. 190 feet is deep even for a towfish but still possible. I made some sloppy scanning today and towed my fish too high over the bottom, about 45 feet (depth was 160 feet) and couldn't see any traces of some small targets I discovered before. When I saw these targets the first time I scanned about 15 feet over the bottom. Perhaps this tells something about how difficult it is to find small objects in deep waters.

Rickard

RGecy · « **Reply #9 on:** September 19, 2009, 06:24:49 PM »

Those are some great images. What I find very interesting is the rock formation and the strata shown under the surface in the 2d mode. Was the 50khz turned on?

Robert

IRC Kevin · « **Reply #10 on:** September 20, 2009, 05:24:43 AM »

Quote from: RGecy on September 19, 2009, 06:24:49 PM

Those are some great images. What I find very interesting is the rock formation and the strata shown under the surface in the 2d mode. Was the 50khz turned on?

Robert

The unit is set to default settings for evrything apart from range and sensitivity, so unless that's part of default, the answer is no. My only transducers are a pair of the standard transom transducers.
There didn't seem to be the same level of return from the rest of this area and I'm very curious about this rock formation, as it's setting all my 'geographer' alarms off, as this is not normal in the bottom of a glaciated trough. Could this be man-made object? (I do actually have something in mind)
Regards,
Kevin

Jolly Roger · « **Reply #11 on:** September 20, 2009, 07:50:12 AM »

Strata??
I first had to check my dictionary to see what that means.

I noticed that these strata are accompanied to all of my wrecks so far and I think it's a good indicator to decide if it's worth to dive in such a spot.

Here's a 2D shot of the kayak I salvaged yesterday
Regards / Harry

Jolly Roger · « **Reply #12 on:** September 20, 2009, 08:03:25 AM »

Let's see,

here's the smal sail boat I've found in May

Jolly Roger · « **Reply #13 on:** September 20, 2009, 08:13:12 AM »

This is the old wreck from June in 2D view

IRC Kevin · « **Reply #14 on:** September 20, 2009, 08:17:24 AM »

Here's a cropped extract of the screenshot. It really doesn't look natural to me and at the right, the bit sticking up actually overhangs the Lake bed. I can't get an accurate measurement using Si View, as the measurement tool just isn't working on this recording, but using a ruler on my PC screen, I estimate the length as roughly 70-80 feet. Harry- you probably know what I'm beginning to think this may be.

Jolly Roger · « **Reply #15 on:** September 20, 2009, 08:30:19 AM »

Holy smoke and stuff like that!

I didn't dare to ask, but since you relate to me: Iz ziss ze Kaiser's vehicle??

(Not yours Hendrik! I mean our old Kaiser

)

/ Harry

IRC Kevin · « **Reply #16 on:** September 20, 2009, 09:01:40 AM »

Quote from: Jolly Roger on September 20, 2009, 08:30:19 AM

Holy smoke and stuff like that!

I didn't dare to ask, but since you relate to me: Iz ziss ze Kaiser's vehicle??

(Not yours Hendrik! I mean our old Kaiser )

/ Harry

That's what I'm wondering. If this is a wreck, the only known vessel of this size is Kaiser Wilhelm II's yacht (not known if it was wooden or an iron steam yacht and probably won't be able to find out until I have the time to trawl through the newspaper archives next summer recess) This was deliberately sunk (probably in spite) in 1920.

IRC Kevin · « **Reply #17 on:** October 29, 2009, 06:21:57 PM »

Just pushed the envelope a bit further. This is a Windermere 17 racing yacht at 208 feet. I'll be putting some more about this and some other pictures onto my personal pages.

Jolly Roger · « **Reply #18 on:** October 29, 2009, 06:33:27 PM »

Hi Kevin,
208 feet?? I go nuts!!

Regards / Harry

IRC Kevin · « **Reply #19 on:** October 29, 2009, 06:44:58 PM »

Quote from: Jolly Roger on October 29, 2009, 06:33:27 PM

Hi Kevin,
208 feet?? I go nuts!!

Regards / Harry

Hi Harry,
You can probably add another couple of feet, as I don't set any offset for the transducers, which are near the bottom of the stern. Hoping to try for the deepest part of the Lake soon, which is supposed to be 220 feet, although I've seen 240 on my old depth gauge, which is spot on with the HBird. One of the char fishermen reckons he found a hole over 300 feet deep- now that would be something!

News:

Author Topic: Maximum depth with Si. (Read 13259 times)

IRC Kevin

IRC Kevin

IRC Kevin

IRC Kevin

IRC Kevin

IRC Kevin

IRC Kevin

IRC Kevin

IRC Kevin

IRC Kevin

Share me

Related Topics