Steve Herschbach

What Constitutes A New Prospecting Detector?

18 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Steve Herschbach said:

No. In my opinion that would be unlikely. I certainly could be wrong. It does not matter that much to me; all that matters is real world performance on found targets.

 How about real world performance on finding targets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One in the same klunker the way I read it.  To find is to be found however finding is what the operator does and to be found is what the detector does.  Sorry just thinking on the topic and I get a simile in my head.

How does one re-invent the wheel?  What defines a truely new type of prospecting detector?  The answer for me is that there is no real way to do so.  All that can be done is tweek the basic design and look at the results.  VLF, PI or ZVT and any combination of these are all just tweeks on the basic design.  One can talk about accessories all day long but in the end the base unit is just the tweek of the base design.

A thought would be to make a machine with true imaging and composition read out but then would that be a new metal detector?  I'm just playing with thoughts however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me to compare detectors I have to do more than go finding stuff. I have to compare both machines on "found targets".

If I am doing serious testing there is only one way I do it. For two detectors:

1. Take detector number one, go find a target. Play with settings to get best signal on this found target. This insures you are tuned up properly for this ground.

2. Check same target with second detector. Again adjust settings for best results in this ground.

3. Make notes on responses, dig the target, make notes on what it was, settings, depth, etc.

4. Swap detectors, and go find target with the second detector.

5. Cross check with first detector.

6. Continue swapping the two detectors and repeating this process for as long and as many targets as it takes to reach reasonable conclusions.

7. Always realize results are only valid for the particular ground and on the particular types of targets found. A totally different location with different mineralization and types of target (gold for instance varies greatly in different places) may yield different results.

This process can take many hours if not days, and can't be rushed. The only thing we want detectors to do is find targets in the ground that usually have been buried a long time. Air tests, test gardens, buried targets etc. all provide some information but in my opinion never substitute for extensive cross testing on "found targets".

My experience with modern VLF detectors is it is very hard to find genuine targets where one detector really shines compared to the other. With most targets both units will fare just as well. I therefore pay particular attention to fringe and "iffy" targets trying to get a situation where one detector has a clear edge over the other. Most machines are so good now it takes a lot of hours to find the edge, one over the other, if it exists at all. More often I just decide I like one or the other more for other reasons doing more with ergonomics than anything else.

I am actually in the process of doing this now using four detectors.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four detectors?! It takes me months to learn just one detector. One of my dig and detect projects would be an excellent place to do your testing.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What constitutes a new prospecting detector???

BECAUSE I WANT ONE!

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look. Really just look.  Steve put up a very comprehensive set of tests for what to look for... honestly take the yin and the yang and look at it.  No such machine exists.  Not yet.  The ZVT is the closest "new" tech yet however it does not address all complaints.  Will not in my opinion but it does a darn good job in many facets. I love it, ZVT, and spoke for it prior to its release. ZVT is one of the most potent releases in detecting times in my opinion.  All are variations on the wheel but I do not diss any variants just pulse that the basics are already there... just that some one, some where, some when will make the click that moves the basics to the next level.... personally I dread that... any swinging *d* can then move up the bar.... and really.  Everyone thinks they have Gold buried in their back yards. Funny how few try to find it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he said!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By LipCa
      Steve,
      Every since you posted that you lose depth when you ground balance, It is in the back of my mind........
      "Ground balancing is a filter and not all that different that the way the discrimination system works. The ground signal or salt signal (or both) are identified and then tuned out. The ground effect is still there, but the detector subtracts it from the overall signal. The key word there is "subtracts". Ground balance methods work by subtracting part of the signal, and all subtractive methods create depth losses of some sort the closer any detected item gets to the "hole" created by subtracting the ground or salt signal. Signals are not perfect but spread over a small range, and so eliminating any signal usually means taking out a small range of signals. "
      I have always tried to keep my detectors ground balanced while using them.... Now I wonder if I should?
       
      Can you put my mind at ease......
    • By Senior Grappa
      If somebody has offered you at option: 1. to reduce the weight of your favourite detector by half 2. to increase its depth by 10% What would you choose?
    • By Jonathan Porter
      So far there has been no real “direct” reviews of the QED, in effect just innuendo clouded by politics, which is not helpful. 
       
      With the help of a friend I've just finished some testing of the QED and want to share our impressions here in the hopes of getting the ball rolling for some quality discussions (but maybe this is being too optimistic?) We hope and believe our tests were rigorously objective, the QED was used for general gold hunting and also comprehensively tested on buried real gold pieces of various sizes in a variety of soils, considerable care was taken to ensure no placebo/bias.*
       
      We deliberately tested on only frequently detected but historically very productive public fields, not private property in which it can be relatively easy to find gold using any technology due to only ever seeing a few detectorists.
       
      First and foremost, important details of the QED's method of operation that are different to other detectors which needs to be clearly understood:
       
      Unlike Minelab detectors, the QED has a “dead zone” that can be varied using the Volume control. The threshold is set using the Bias control and has 2 different audio threshold settings, an upper and a lower value. When the Bias is turned down in number below the threshold lower value, OR, turned up in number above the upper threshold value, the “Threshold” audio increases as per usual.
       
      Suppose for example, the lower audio threshold bias value of the Bias control happens to be 50 and the upper threshold bias number happens to be 60. Then if the Bias is turned down below 50 OR turned up above 60, the audio “threshold” level increases as per usual. For these threshold examples, 50 and 60, small gold (fast time constant targets) “in effect” produce signals less than 55 (half way between 50 and 60), and larger gold “in effect” produce signals more than 55.
       
      If the Bias is set at the lower threshold limit, 50 for example, then the detection of small gold will give the usual INCREASE in audio level response, and larger gold will give a BELOW threshold level response,
       
      OR
       
      If Bias is set at the higher threshold limit, 60 for example, then the detection of larger gold will give the usual INCREASE in audio level response, and smaller gold will give a BELOW audio threshold level response.
       
      Similarly with ground noise; some ground noise will in effect produce signals below 55, so that if the Bias is set at 50, this ground noise will give an increase in audio sound, but if the Bias is set at 60, this ground noise will give a below threshold audio response. Conversely, if the ground noise is in effect above 55, then if the Bias is set at 50, this ground noise will give a below threshold audio, but if Bias is set at 60, this ground noise will give an increase in audio level.
       
      Signals in effect BETWEEN 50 and 60 are in the “dead-zone,” for which the audio is below threshold. Signals in effect below 50 OR above 60 give an increase in audio.
       
      So if threshold is set at the lower threshold of 50, then faint signals from small gold will give an above threshold audio, and large targets a below threshold audio. Whereas its the opposite for the upper threshold of 60, faint signals from large gold will give an above threshold audio, and small targets below threshold audio. So for shallow small gold select the lower threshold limit, for big deeper gold select the upper threshold limit. Bigger target signals will produce above threshold signals regardless of whether they are small or larger targets.
       
      However the Volume control controls the dead-zone width; the gap between the upper and lower threshold Bias settings, that is, the dead zone gap is increased by turning the Volume down, or decreased by turning the Volume up.
       
      In fact the QED can be set to operate with NO dead-zone (like the usual Minelab PI audio).
       
      To do this:
       
      a.    Vary the Bias between the upper and lower threshold. Note the gap.
      b.     Increase volume a bit.
      c.    Re-do a. and note the decrease in the gap.
      d.    Continue to repeat a, b, c until there is no gap.
      (This will allow some feel for true ground noise etc.)
       
      However the QED audio has a very low level signal EVEN if below threshold, This below threshold faint audio signal is just the pitch signal only, and detects all signals, ground noise, target signals, whether long time constant or short, and EMI. But this below threshold pitch sensitivity is not as acute as the audio set at threshold per point 2 below, and it is very soft.
       
      Yet even further, if a target or ground noise (or EMI) does drive the audio below threshold, the nature of the audio is that it has the usual “re-bound” response once the coil has moved over and past the target or ground noise. I refer to the lower pitch audio following the initial target higher pitch audio (“high-low”) or the opposite; the higher pitch audio following the initial target lower pitch audio (“low-high”) effect known from Minelab PI's. So for moderately weak target signals that cause the audio to dip below threshold once the coil moves beyond the target and the audio then rebounds above threshold. To recap; for these targets, as the coil passes over the target the audio goes first below threshold THEN above the threshold. 
       
      However for the fainter of these target signals (the important signals one listens for in thrashed ground), this rebound signal is hard to discern compared to the same signal that would occur if the Bias had been set at the alternative threshold setting for which the audio signal then would have given an initial increase in threshold as the coil passes over it and then a below threshold rebound. Therefore, it is important to understand that you EITHER need to set the Bias to chase the faint small targets in shallow ground (Bias at the lower number setting), but lose out a bit on the faint large target signals OR set the Bias to chase the faint larger targets in deeper ground (Bias at the higher number threshold setting) but lose out a bit on the smaller targets.
       
      The QED has a “motion” audio response; meaning the coil has to be moved to hear a signal. It can be operated both quickly, and also, remarkably slowly. If the coil is moved “remarkably” slowly it is possible to hear the average audio detect a very faint target above the audio “background random chatter”, considerably more readily than if the coil was moved at a typical realistic operational speed. When depth testing and when you know where the target is, beware that you do not slow down the coil swing to an artificial unnatural swing speed to enable the detection of a deep target at its known location.*
       
      Important recommendations:
       
      1.     It's very important to get the threshold (Bias) spot on for optimal results, If the threshold level is too high, then faint signals get drowned out, but if the audio threshold level is too low then only the residual very faint pitch signal remains, but this faint pitch only signal is less sensitive to target signals than the audio set optimally as per point 2 immediately following.
       
      2.     The threshold must be set so that it is just audible; in effect just immediately below the “real” audio threshold signal, so that what you are hearing is just between only the pitch signal and actual above threshold audio.
       
      3.     Note that the effective principal threshold control (Bias) is temperature dependent and requires reasonably frequent adjustment over time as the ambient temperature changes to get best results. Therefore there is NO actual specific optimal Bias number setting, rather it entirely depends on temperature. It can be as high as 70 in very hot conditions 
       
      4.  Once 2. and 3. are optimally achieved, you will find that the GB setting has to be spot on for best results. If you find that it is not critical, you really need to re-address points 2. and 3.
       
      5.  The QED does produce ground noise that sounds on occasion like a target. If you aren't digging some ground noise you do not have it set up properly, especially in variable soils. With ANY detector (automatic GB or Manual) altering the GB setting slightly to eliminate a faint “deep target-like signal” will result in eliminating the faint signal whether it is ground noise OR in fact a deep real metal target.
       
      6.  You need to listen to the soft “subliminal” threshold of the QED very carefully, quality headphones are a must.
       
      7.  “Gain” acts as a sensitivity control as you would expect.
       
      I suggest that the QED is best used as a specialist very fine (Small) gold detector. It produced a reasonably clear but quiet response to the extreme small gold (of the order of 0.1 g), we managed to find 5 tiny pieces in well-worked ground in all totaling 1 gram, although the SDC would have picked 5 of the 5, but not so well in one location due to power line noise (This could be remedied somewhat by lowering the Gain of the SDC and using minimal threshold). However, we purposely went over exactly the same ground with the SDC with the SDC set at a lower threshold and 3 on the gain, and then found 3 more pieces of gold; we are 100% sure we had already passed the QED exactly over the target locations so we put this down to QED ground noise masking targets. The QED struggles compared to the SDC in the more mineralised soils, however the QED does seem superior to the ATX.
       
      To get the most out of the QED, use a small coil such as an 8” Commander mono, and set the Mode as low as possible so long as the ground signals do not become too intrusive. Usually 1 or 2 is OK for Minelab coils, but some other coils may produce too much ground noise at this setting so you may need to increase the Mode to 3 or above dependent on the ground.
       
      Further, we got some very thin aluminium foil and very gradually trimmed it down until the SDC could no longer detect it. This represents particularly fast time constant targets (“extremely” small gold), and found that the QED did still detect it, but only within several mm of the coil surface, not further. But this does mean that the QED will detect extremely small shallow pieces that the SDC will not.
       
      Alternatively we suggest the QED is also a suitable lightweight low-cost patch hunter when used with a large coil with the Mode turned up so that there is less ground noise.
       
      For the sake of completion, to answer questions posed of the QED depth for an Australian 5 cent piece compared to the Zed  both using the same sized coils. We measured this carefully and we are not prepared to give exact figures to avoid any trivial arguments, other than to say that the QED detected between 60% to 2/3rd of the depth of the Z. 
       
      The QED susceptibility to EMI in areas remote from mains compared to the 5k on EMI noisy days? In one word: “Good.
       
      The QED susceptibility to mains in urban areas compared to the SDC or Zed? In two words: “Typically Bad.”
       
      The QED’s main strength is its cost, light weight, ergonomics, and simplicity of use, and yes it IS definitely simple to use, but a bit “fiddly.” It has no “magic settings” once you understand exactly how it operates as described above. Going back to the SDC really highlighted the difference a light weight detector can have on general comfort and enjoyment of detecting, and our experiences with the QED underscored Minelab's poor ergonomics.
       
      In our opinion the QED fits a market where people are looking for a cheap detector capable of finding small gold in thrashed areas, and are wanting more coil choices without the specialised "one size fits all" approach of the SDC. Good value for money.
       
      Its main weakness is its underlying ground noise, which although having the advantage of being “hidden” in the dead zone, nevertheless limits depth compared to lower ground noise capable detectors, for targets other than the very fast time constant targets. In summary it works relatively best in the less mineralised soils for small gold.
       
      Beyond the scope of the above suggested prospecting (very small gold & patch hunting mainly in relatively unmineralised soils), I choose not to comment further, other than we will not be using the QED for purposes other than secondary activities, and still intend to use other well-known detectors for primary prospecting activities because of their other advantages. 
       
      No doubt others with QED's will disagree with us. We welcome this, and would be happy to be proved wrong.
       
      Ultimately, time tells the truth by substantial gold finds or lack thereof in well-worked ground.
       
      *Note: because of the subtle audio, it is easy to imagine you are “hearing” a target above the general background ground noise when you know where it is. We endeavoured to avoid this tendency.




    • By mn90403
      No, I'm not talking about politics and being a Moveon.org trainer.  I'm talking about resistivity detecting.
      Electrical resistivity tomography
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) or electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) is a geophysical technique for imaging sub-surface structures from electrical resistivity measurements made at the surface, or by electrodes in one or more boreholes. If the electrodes are suspended in the boreholes, deeper sections can be investigated. It is closely related to the medical imaging technique electrical impedance tomography (EIT), and mathematically is the same inverse problem. In contrast to medical EIT however ERT is essentially a direct current method.
      A related geophysical method, induced polarization, measures the transient response. The technique evolved from techniques of electrical prospecting that predate digital computers, where layers or anomalies were sought rather than images. Early work on the mathematical problem in the 1930s assumed a layered medium (see for example Langer, Slichter). Andrey Nikolayevich Tikhonov who is best known for his work on regularization of inverse problems also worked on this problem. He explains in detail how to solve the ERT problem in a simple case of 2-layered medium. During the 1940s he collaborated with geophysicists and without the aid of computers they discovered large deposits of copper. As a result, they were awarded a State Prize of Soviet Union.
        Andrey Nikolayevich Tikhonov, the "father of ERT" When adequate computers became widely available the inverse problem of ERT could be solved numerically, and the work of Loke and Barker at Birmingham University was among the first such solution, and their approach is still widely used.
      With the advancement in the field of Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) from 1D to 2D and now-a- days 3D, ERT has explored many fields. The applications of ERT include fault investigation, ground water table investigation, soil moisture content determination and many others. In industrial process imaging ERT can be used in a similar fashion to medical EIT, to image the distribution of conductivity in mixing vessels and pipes. In this context it is usually called Electrical Resistance Tomography, emphasising the quantity that is measured rather than imaged.
       
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_tomography 
      Here is one unit being offered by Kellyco.
      https://www.kellycodetectors.com/blog/find-gold-resistivity?utm_source=email&utm_medium=BlogBUTTON&utm_content=BlogGoldResistivity&utm_campaign=MSTRBlogGoldResistivity20170624&utm_term=Lead_SuperBowlGiveaway2016
      Mitchel
       
    • By Condor
      I know this topic has appeared off and on over the years, but I'd like to better understanding on the theory and principle of using one over the other, ie. depth, and target id and what compromises do I induce.  The reason I ask is the new V4 for XP Deus has the ability to set a minus discrimination.  It kills the ability to use the "horseshoe" screen for ferrous target ID, but VID numbers are tolerable.  What theoretically happens if I set a negative discrimination, but use Notch to handle ordinary ferrous trash? 
    • By Rege-PA
      As a rule do the lower vlf frequencies punch deeper than the higher ones, say 4.8 verses 14khz?
      But what is the trade off? Are some frequencies better for silver coins? How does iron enter into this?
      Need to understand how this all fits together!
      Thanks for any and all answers.