[WhackUmStackUm]

The pics are on this page: http://www.pensacolafishingforum.com/f25/bottom-pics-timber-holes-133542/

 

[lobsterman]

What depth?

 

[WhackUmStackUm]

what depth?

91-110'

 

[36Hatt]

Seeing the topo's makes me want to ask a bunch of questions.... But I'll stop at two.

What bottom machine were you using?

What would you guess is the actual distance from the upper edge to the bottom edge of one of those graphs?

Thanks,

Blaine

 

[WhackUmStackUm]

Seeing the topo's makes me want to ask a bunch of questions.... But I'll stop at two.

What bottom machine were you using?

It is a mix of off-the-shelf hardware and software combined with custom hardware and software that I built for member FishEyeMaps.

What would you guess is the actual distance from the upper edge to the bottom edge of one of those graphs?

Sorry, are you referring to the difference between the shallowest point to the deepest point on the map (91'-110'), or the relief of a particular hard bottom spot, or the horizontal distance between two points?

 

[36Hatt]

Sorry, are you referring to the difference between the shallowest point to the deepest point on the map (91'-110'), or the relief of a particular hard bottom spot, or the horizontal distance between two points?

No, I probably wasn't clear. I was just trying to get an idea of how wide a path the bottom machince was showing at those depths, so the horizontal distance between the top of the edge of the graph in the photo to the bottom edge of the graph.

Not sure I made it any better.

Blaine

 

[WhackUmStackUm]

No, I probably wasn't clear. I was just trying to get an idea of how wide a path the bottom machince was showing at those depths, so the horizontal distance between the top of the edge of the graph in the photo to the bottom edge of the graph.

Not sure I made it any better.

Blaine

Ok, I think I get your meaning. The software corrects for the widening beam and weaker reflection as depth increases. The corrected ping diameter is about 20'.