underwater anchor cam with wifi

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Tayana42

Can you share a link to where to purchase such a mermaid? I think there is probably quite a large market for such.

I suspect there being an equally large market prospect for Mermen.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Tayana42

Can you share a link to where to purchase such a mermaid? I think there is probably quite a large market for such.

I clicked a previous link but this model appears to be all sold out for some reason?

I added myself to the waiting list to be advised when future stock becomes available...

[leont]

Drops down and WiFis from the float. $240, 450ft.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07KMM1DLT..._t3_B07584TVKM

$240, 450ft

[Brewgyver]

Originally Posted by leont

Drops down and WiFis from the float. $240, 450ft.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07KMM1DLT..._t3_B07584TVKM

$240, 450ft

It will not wifi anything while submerged, as it says pretty plainly in the description. It RECORDS video while submerged, then links up to the app once on the surface. I would imagine even then the connection would be difficult, and linking would be best done once completely retrieved.

So, you hook it up on your fishing rig (so you have to have such), then what? Cast it out past your anchor and reel it in, hoping to catch the anchor on video, which you won't know until you can link to the app. Review video, no anchor in sight. Repeat cast and retrieve. Get camera snagged on bottom structure. Then you either dive to recover it, or you're out $244.

[sy_gilana]

Why look for a high tech solution to a low tech problem.


People have been anchoring for centuries.


IF we need an anchor alarm we use a length of line and a diving weight, total cost zero because we had them on board. IF and I mean IF we think we need to set the alarm, (maybe 2 nights in the last 7000) we toss the weight over the side with the line attached, then pass the other end through the hatch and loop it around my toe, or tie to a pot that will slide off a step if the line is pulled. No batteries required, no maintenance, 100% reliability.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Montanan

If it is holding properly as tested by backing hard against the rode for a couple of minutes of pulling, what then is the motivation to have a look at it? What is gained by a visual inspection that isn't provided by a purely mechanical load testing of its holding power? There being bottoms onto which an anchor will set properly but not have significant holding power because of the nature of the substrate. It might look like it is set deeply but deeply into a bottom with minimal holding capacities.

Here is an example of an anchor that would have held full reverse, but is actually very unsecure. A change in direction of pull could see the anchor break out with little force.

This type of set is unusual, but I have seen many similar cases. There are often some clues that everything is not as it should be when the setting force is applied, but nevertheless this skipper did not appreciate the poor potential holding power available.

Probably the biggest advantage of diving and observing the anchor is that it will show you how the anchor performs in different substrates and teach you about anchor behaviour. It will make you better at anchoring . However, diving on the anchor is certainly not essential or even always feasible. There is no way I am diving on our anchor in Norway .

[StoneCrab]

Low tech: cut the bottom out of a bucket and replace the bottom with clear plexiglass sealed with silicone caulk. Use it like a huge set of goggles. Advantage is that you don't need to get your head wet. Works like a charm for looking down on the anchor, bonus is that it still functions as a bucket.

Mid tech: Get a dark colored bucket with a screw on lid. The big box stores sell these. They are waterproof when sealed and the lids fit on any 5 gallon paint bucket. Cut out the center of the bottom of the bucket ... (as in the low tech version above), add something heavy to weight it down, leaving the center of the bucket open to the plexiglass. Put a wifi GoPro or look-alike in the bottom of the bucket pointed down. Screw on the lid, and control the GoPro from the boat. You will need to rig a harness to the bucket which is attached to the crown of the anchor (or the head of the shank). The floating bucket will then serve two purposes; it will mark the location of your anchor and the line will provide a way to back the anchor out of a jam situation, like when the flukes get under a rock.

Higher Tech: Get an old Android smartphone and a Plumbers "endoscope". These are very inexpensive now. Install the endoscope viewing software on the Android phone along with a copy of VNC server. Install VNC viewer on your boat based smartphone or laptop. Put the phone in a bucket or pelican case as in the above example, run the endoscope cable into the bucket sealing it with a cable gland and silicone caulk. Float the bucket over the anchor as before, fire up VNC viewer and take remote control of the phone. You will be able to fire up the endoscope software and / or use the camera's internal phone. This will give you the option of looking at the anchor from above or at depth. I'd tie the endoscope to the anchor tether.

A thought about LED lighting. It is only really effective if you have multiple light sources from the side or behind the camera. Lighting that is too direct will only light up the silt which will reflect the light right back into the camera obscuring its view.

With the Android and VNC software, you could probably hook up a pan and tilt camera inside of that bucket as well by connecting the camera directly to the phone.

To turn all of this into a product, you'd just need to make it look sexier than a bucket.

[Mike Banks]

I never tried it--but I have a small underwater camera in a housing that is supposed to be good for ten metres or so--that is nearly forty feet--abot the most depth in which I usually anchor when coastal hopping.

I would tie this camera to a strong l;ine. tie the camera to the anchor chain just above the anchor, set the camera going on "Motion" and set the anchor. Pull the string and break the cotton ties and retrieve your camera, then have a shufti. MY camera cost about sixty bucks including the housing. I used it on a pole to check propeller and hull from a dinghy. No treason why it could not check the anchor too--

[stewie]

I think this is going a step too far. Yachting should be enjoyed at its basics.

[seandepagnier]

This is actually not very expensive, $1000 is far too much, but you need to do your own engineering since there are few underwater drones available.

I would tether it using an ethernet cable as well for data and power.

Also add a scraper and use a gaming controller to scrap the bottom.

[hzcruiser]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wifi, Bluetooth, and just about all the off-the-shelf, licence-free RF technologies do not travel through water. [...]

What's needed is a simple video camera [...] can run down and back up the rode.

Of course, chain rode lies flat near the anchor, so that wouldn't really work.

The OP is obviously aware of that limitation, since he mentioned the "float" to send the signal back. He also doesn't want to put on a dive mask himself, because we now have gadgets for everything in life, right?



And yes, you just confirmed that following the chain is not a solution, either.


Others, like Tom, mentioned they wouldn't buy it, even if it existed. Hence the demand seems very low.


The OP was just throwing out an idea to solve his immediate problem, that's all there is.

And as usual, people want cheap, and they want it now.
As they say, ideas are a dime a dozen. The problem quite often is the reality of actually implementing this is much more complex than they think.
Being an electronics developer myself, I've had friends and even family coming up to me with "unusual" ideas, believing that it would absolutely sell like hot cakes if someone were to develop it.
One example is a GPS enabled cat tracker so he knows where to find his pet in the evening to bring him home. What's out there either doesn't work or is too heavy for a cat, ok for a bigger dog. And he doesn't want to spend 500 bucks on it.
Second example is walker/lift for elderly and/or disabled people to get them in and out of bed without breaking the carers back. Lots of solution attempts out there, but either not affordable or not reliable or not suitable, I'm afraid.

[hzcruiser]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I would recommend purchasing a mermaid. The initial cost can be quite reasonable, but unfortunately the running cost can be high on occasions. Frequent servicing is mandatory.

Here is my mermaid swimming down to photograph another boat’s anchor:

Very nice pic!
She doesn't seem to even carry a camera?
Either way, it seems that the anchor has dragged already.

[wsmurdoch]

While I like the two fin model the best, Amazon stocks several alternatives...
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=portable+..._sb_ss_sc_1_23
...and they may be cheaper in the long run.

[sy_gilana]

I am struggling with the concept here.

If the OP had said he was looking for a natty underwater remote video solution, all fair and good, what a nice toy. I like toys. I even have some toys.

BUT


To use this as a means of determining a good set or not is a bad idea, it is almost dangerous. The one time we dragged in a 60 knot squall, I had dived the anchor, and it was buried up to the hilt in what looked like white sand.

In fact, the sand was only about 3 or 4 inches thick, and underneath was broken coral, one lump of which was neatly occupying the mouth of the anchor. Visually that would have passed camera inspection, as it had passed 3d diving inspection. I just had not pulled back hard enough with the engine and in the direction that the squall came from.

If it is night, if it is zero vizibility, the camera wont help. The reason that I say it could be dangerous, is that the camera operator could be in the dingy with a tablet or video screen checking the anchor, while the boat is actually dragging and he is not on board!

For all practical purposes, I would not trust this system, I find it superfluous, and distracting. I choose and suggest that the OP rely on the tried and tested methods which have, over millennia evolved to a state of trust.



Looking at an image is just not good enough.

Imagine an after the fact discussion in court. "What steps did you take to establish you were anchored safely?" "Well , I sent down my little camera and it looked good" "is this a generally acceptable method?" " No, but I thought it was way cooler, so instead of starting my engine, and recovering chain, I clicked record, so I could post the video on youtube"

1 Learn to anchor well using tried and tested methods.
2 Find an underwater video feed system for any other reason.

[Panope]

I'm pretty handy at filming anchors with a GoPro camera and then recovering the footage AFTER the anchor is retrieved. However, I failed at devising a workable "breakaway" system that would allow the camera to be retrieved without disturbing the anchor.

My (failed) setup used a downward pointing camera floating above the anchor on a 3 foot tether (with easily broken fuse). A second float was attached to the camera with a line that was a bit longer than water depth. The idea was to set the anchor, then row over to the float, give it a tug, and retrieve the whole mess.

Seems like the above should be workable, but in practice, it was just a huge pain the butt dealing with the extra strings, floats, and camera.

I gave it several trys: One attempt resulted in the camera getting slightly fouled and aiming away from the anchor. Another attempt had the breakaway fuse letting go before the set.

My last attempt looked like everything went perfectly, but no footage was collected because I had forgot to activate the camera

There is no question that had I not given up, I would have eventually succeeded with the above set-up. That said, there is no chance that I would make this a standard procedure for general anchoring due gear handling complications.

Steve