HD Radar: Is it Sensitive Enough to Pick Up Ice?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Exiles

.
Jan 25, 2011
9
Hallberg-Rasy Monsun 31 Malmo
HD Radar: Is it Sensitive Enough to Pick Up Small Objects ?
I am looking for peoples feedback on HD radar. I am planning to buy a system and was wondering if anyone knows if it is sensitive enough to pick up icebergs and if so to what size.

Also I would appreciate feedback on proven models.

If you want further information check out my expedition blog at



www.belzebub2.com

Thanks for your advice!
 

Tim R.

.
May 27, 2004
3,626
Caliber 40 Long Range Cruiser Portland, Maine
I am sure they will pickup visible portions of ice bergs. It's the growlers that you need to worry about and radar will never see those.
 
Sep 25, 2008
615
Morgan 415 Out Island Rogersville, AL
The radar cross section (RCS) of an ice berg should be very high since a berg is frozen fresh water. Old sea ice, on the other hand, has a high saline content which decreases the RCS (increases RF absorbtion). Airborne remote sensing radars, depending on frequency, can penetrate old sea ice very deeply. New sea ice reflects most of the RF energy at the surface.
 
Mar 20, 2004
1,753
Hunter 356 and 216 Portland, ME
Simrad's broadband radar can pick up lobster pots laying on th surface so I would expect it to do pretty well on growlers
 
Jan 4, 2010
1,037
Farr 30 San Francisco
Snotter, I think you have it backwards. Fresh water is non-conductive (not like metal) and shouldn't give a good return. Saltwater is more conductive (like metal) and should give a better radar return.
 
Feb 6, 1998
11,760
Canadian Sailcraft 36T Casco Bay, ME
Snotter, I think you have it backwards. Fresh water is non-conductive (not like metal) and shouldn't give a good return. Saltwater is more conductive (like metal) and should give a better radar return.
Has nothing to do with electrical conductivity. It is all about the ability to reflect the microvave signal and bounce it back. Not all ice has the same density or radar wave reflectivity. Vertical surface to the radar reflect the signal better and paint a better image on the display. Remember our radars will also reflect off water and wave faces, in fresh and salt water, and we often struggle to "tune out" or minimize the sea clutter.

As Tim said the low growlers are hard to see on radar. This is often because they have been washed by the ocean and are smooth and low usually with no vertical angles to reflect off. If the salt has eroded them then they can become more absorbing and less reflective but will often still reflect if the proper angles are there.

Neutrally buoyant bergs are impossible to see on radar and present the most danger because they float just at or near the surface but rarely poke above it. Icebergs on the other hand can often be seen for many miles, especially when new or recently calved. As time goes by though they too get smoother from ocean wash and may not reflect as well as they lose many of their sharp edges and angles that help reflect the signal..

One trick I learned is that you can often detect a non-reflecting chunk of ice by the lack of sea clutter in the radar shadow behind it so sometimes even poor reflecting large objects still give us usable screen data. I have never tried this with large ice. I have however once picked up a huge floating mass of weed and garbage due to the lack of sea clutter. This is one reason I tend to leave some clutter on the screen and not completely "sterilize" it.

While there are materials that make better or worse reflectors for radar, ice can certainly be a decent reflector. Wood and fiberglass can be poor but even these can still reflect..

The shape of the ice has a lot to do with this as you'll need a surface that is in the right angle to bounce back a signal. I have picked up ice on my old 4KW Raymarine non-HD with no problem but this was new ice not old stuff that may have more porosity, be more sea washed and thus may not reflect well. Not all ice chunks could be picked up however because some were just poorer targets, due to angle, like many boats are. Ice in general is hit or miss due to the shape or reflecting angles not necessarily it's ability to reflect a signal.

The danger of ice, like boats, is that you will not pick them all up. This is why boats use radar reflectors, because many are poor targets. Ice chunks don't use reflectors...
 
Sep 25, 2008
615
Morgan 415 Out Island Rogersville, AL
Snotter, I think you have it backwards. Fresh water is non-conductive (not like metal) and shouldn't give a good return. Saltwater is more conductive (like metal) and should give a better radar return.
I am slightly dyslexic:redface:. So sorry
 
Jun 6, 2006
6,990
currently boatless wishing Harrington Harbor North, MD
HD or analog radar better?

So is HD or analog better. My experience is that analog has a much wider range of possible signal strength returns while digital receives these same returns and "bins" them into discreet steps. The steps being the places that most of the useful stuff likes to hide (I think that is a rule)
So analog is just a matter of setting the "squelch" right or changing it an watching the screen but digital automagicaly takes care of that “screen clutter” and misses the nuanced stuff.
Thoughts?
 
Feb 6, 1998
11,760
Canadian Sailcraft 36T Casco Bay, ME
So is HD or analog better. My experience is that analog has a much wider range of possible signal strength returns while digital receives these same returns and "bins" them into discreet steps. The steps being the places that most of the useful stuff likes to hide (I think that is a rule)
So analog is just a matter of setting the "squelch" right or changing it an watching the screen but digital automagicaly takes care of that “screen clutter” and misses the nuanced stuff.
Thoughts?
Having owned and operated both analog CRT and raster/LCD units in both "analog" and "HD", which is really nothing more than better processing as no LCD units are truly analog like they were in the 50's & 60's, I would definitely give the nod to HD. It really works well at defining targets better.

Our current Garmin GMR-18 HD has far better target definition than any of my older Raytheon or Furuno units in the same or similar radome size antenna.

On this boat the Garmin replaced an old but very nice Raytheon 10X which had a beautiful CRT screen. While the 10X still worked just fine and has all the same buttons and features as the Garmin, the Garmin blows it away in performance even though I am staring at an LCD screen vs. a CRT.

That being said if you buy a Garmin you had better already know how to use radar because their manuals SUCK!!

There is also the newer broadband radar, which I am not completely sold on just yet, despite the reported energy savings. It works well close in but tends to lack in distance performance.

Of the new HD domes I feel that Furuno, as it usually does, has the performance edge but also has the highest PRICE. They were late to the HD game, a good move on their part as it allowed them to study the other offerings, but this also lost them some of the HD market early on. The Raymarine and Garmin domes I suspect are probably pretty close performance wise.

My only complaint with Furuno is that I really dislike their user interface and I need to use my screen as a plotter as well. Furuno units are also usually fairly bullet proof, though I have had very good luck with Garmin reliability. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Raymarine reliability though their customer service is now excellent.
 

ronbo

.
Jan 2, 2009
46
gozzard 44B mkll md
From a practical standpoint I find my Raymarine RD424HD radar has much better performance for picking up small objects both close and distant. However, my old RC 70C was better at seeing rain squalls coming across the Chesapeake Bay. Most likely an unintended consequence of digital processing.

Ronbo
 

Exiles

.
Jan 25, 2011
9
Hallberg-Rasy Monsun 31 Malmo
Great advice all!!!

I am going to also install a forward looking sonar to compliment the Radar. I have certainely learned alot from the above conversations!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.