Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tom wrote:
Thank you gents for the discussion. Yes, I talked to Lowrance and of course they have a $200.00 (new tranducer with longer coax) and my installation time is about a day's work. Of course when you start pulling off panels of a 40 year old boat with flybridge you will find another day's work. I don't have a scope but I have a digital volt/ohm meter. I was hoping there was a method of testing the existing transducer for compatibility. The plug's ends do not match (male -- female) so I would have to splice to use the exisiting. Sounds to me that the most guaranteed way to buy the new product and install it. But I am a Ham, and more of an Appliance Operator. The formulas you shown above were most interesting but I didn't understand the theory and the conclusion. If I take it to the Marina, wow, that would be another $250.00 costs for them to install a new tranducer, plus the costs of labor for their chap to install it. There is nobody at any Marina around here (Southern Ontario Canada) that would understand what you folks have talked about above and they would instantly and simply order the new parts and install them. Maybe installing less quality cables as the ones that are there are gutsy ones and it is a through hull fitting already in place. In fact all Marina's around here have very negative reputations for stuff like this. So if you folks were in the same boat as I am, would you splice it? Would you be worried about it working incorrectly or the possibility of it damaging the head? I am not worried about deep water operations, never in water over 100 feet deep and I believe these are good to 800 feet. Would you guys simply slice it properly? Job done in an hour. Or take Lowrance's suggestion and spend the money and time? Thansk again for very informative and interesting discussion, Cheers and Best Regards 73s I certainly would not worry about the old transducer damaging the equipment. What I would worry about is it working a bit but much less effectively than the new transducer. Someone produced some data suggesting the new head needs a 192kHz transducer and your old one being 200kHz (or possibly vice versa). Whether that matters depends how sharply tuned the transducers are. I would guess that they would *not* be very compatible but might work a bit. You could actually estimate how sharply tuned the transducer is by using an impedance bridge with variable frequency, but if you can't borrow one it would probably be possible to do measurements with simpler equipment. This would not be conclusive though. If you can find some published figures for the sound output bandwidth of this sort of transducer it mght tell you whether to expect useful results with about 4% mistuning. I suspect they are actually quite sharply tuned if they are electromechanical, but I don't even know if this is the case. The alternative being piezoelectric. Can you temporarily rig the new transducer in a small dinghy and do A to B comparisons alongside each other, and see whether one is much more effective? -- Roger Hayter |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Fish Tank Water Pump | Boatanchors | |||
Fish Bath Rugs | Dx | |||
Fish Tank Plants | CB | |||
I love fish | Shortwave | |||
That Rotten Fish Smell | Shortwave |