Bag of water/install transducer
- Thread starter PSR
- Start date
basically because it provides a medium to shoot the signal through, instead of just air. There's technical reasons, but that's the basics. Using a bag of water allows you to test it in different possible mounting locations before permanently (or semi-perm) mounting your transducer to the hull. You can also test-fit with other things, like toilet bowl wax, and stuff, but a bag of water works just as well and very simple to move around for testing purposes.
And also, just in case you haven't gotten that far, when you DO go to mount it in a final location, you'll be mounting it into something as well - either epoxy sealed to the hull at the right angle, the wax trick, or a collar mated to the hull which would be filled with mineral oil or other similar fluids.
And also, just in case you haven't gotten that far, when you DO go to mount it in a final location, you'll be mounting it into something as well - either epoxy sealed to the hull at the right angle, the wax trick, or a collar mated to the hull which would be filled with mineral oil or other similar fluids.
For the transducer to sense the depth it needs to send its ping through water and listen for the response. If the ping goes through air, or an air/water boundary, it disperses and the echo does not return properly. For this reason, you need to provide as constant a path as possible for the signal, and a bag of water provides a good constant medium for this, at least to test before permanently mounting in epoxy, caulk, etc.
I use plumbers putty. It works great, and not even CLOSE to being as nasty as a wax toilet ring. Those things are so icky a rubber glove is required. Seriously, three bucks, and you'll never touch it again.
(Another thing, wax will melt if it is too close to running equipment, putty never).
(Another thing, wax will melt if it is too close to running equipment, putty never).
It would be interesting to evaluate which substance passes the signal through the hull best. I would suspect the substances with some elasticity when cured would do best. Chief
Chief, the one I use right now is a Garmin Echo150. It's the only way I will mount a transducer is with plumbers putty, and have done it several times. The only failure I've ever had was because a waxed in transducer melted. On my depth now, (which is a fish finder), it gives me contours and even pictures of little fishes swimming underneath.
Now all this could simply be just a video game or something, as I have no way to determine if there are fish or not, but I know for a fact the depth is right. I also have a depth finder in the bulkhead, w/ the transducer actually thruhulled. They both read the same.
Now all this could simply be just a video game or something, as I have no way to determine if there are fish or not, but I know for a fact the depth is right. I also have a depth finder in the bulkhead, w/ the transducer actually thruhulled. They both read the same.
Sounds like you have a built in sensitivity reference. Good point, as I have that same capability to compare. Chief
I've seen wax used, and plumbers putty, and even ( believe it or not 
) Peanut butter. But nearly all, if not all of the manufacturers recommend epoxy
) Peanut butter. But nearly all, if not all of the manufacturers recommend epoxy
My transducer came epoxied to the boat but was wondering, when considering what material to use to mount the transducer, is it a go/no-go type decision or will the accuracy/readable depth be affected by the material?
I thought it was just a matter of choice as long as air bubbles/cavities are eliminated but Chief's comment now has me wondering.
You know Guys, it might be that the substance bonding material is just not the major factor here. It could be that we find the best location, put it down with minimum space between the transducer and hull, then get the air bubbles out. Care may be more important than bonding substance. I do know that using epoxy is way to final for me since I know I will be replacing that transducer sooner or later! Silicone suits me best as I can at least cut it off the bottom if need be.
Nice discussion! Later, Chief
Nice discussion! Later, Chief
Actually an epoxied on transducer isn't all that hard to remove. A sharp chisel under the edge and a good whack usually does it. And if you are replacing, it's probably because it quit working.so who cares if it gets dinged?
Makes you wonder just what that measure of a better adhesive would be ......................... reduced accuracy of the depth reading, or the depth at which the signal is finally lost.
Not sure, though I would think it would be more the overall range max. My lake is only a little over 400 ft deep and my in-hull transducer still shows that much (using RV Antifreeze in the collar mounted to the hull with silicone). The accuracy at shallow depths still seems pretty spot on, though I assume there's probably a couple 10ths variance anyway.
I used plumbers putty last weekend to mount our new electronic transducer (as opposed to lowering our old fashioned cast iron 600 lb one).
Instant accurate depth displayed along with imaging.
Clean fast simple moveable works.
K.I.S.S.