Jump to content
Steve Herschbach

What Constitutes A New Prospecting Detector?

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 3

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.

  • Like 2

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.

  • Like 2

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 MikePfeiffer
      First, I want to say this is one of the best forums I have ever seen. Steve has put together a GREAT website. The knowledge base on the forum is just phenomenal. I have learned so so much more about metal detectors from all of you.
       
      So let me explain assumed.
       
      I assumed:
      White's and Garret were the best metal detectors.
      Carl Moreland was still working for White's
      Metal detectors were 10 years behind technology of today. (just my thought)
       
      After making the assumptions, I realized how wrong I was thanks to this forum. I realized White' and Garrett have been a sleep. Carl Moreland either quit or was fired. White's and Garrett detector are whats 10 behind.
       
      When I got back into metal detecting last year. I was looking for a new machine. I looked at White's and Garrett with the assumptions. I thought about building my own detector. So I read Carl Moreland's book. (Great book) I realized that it would take me 2 to 5 years to develop my own detector. So I scrapped this idea. I could not understand why White's or Garrett had not built a detector with what I expected. I thought that with today's technology there should be a sweep frequency oscillator for the coil-s and an easy to read display. That being said, White's closest model was the V3i. Garrett had nothing. I quickly realized that I needed to look at everything. Because of the forum, I found Minelab was being discussed. When I found the Minelad Safari, I quickly realized it had what I was thinking of building. I don't like their LCD display. It does not look clear a crisp to me. However the machine looks promising. Then I looked at the E-track and CTX-3030. These also look to be very promising machines. Just the price is higher that I want to pay for a -2 times a month hobby. I really wish the best for White's and Garrett. They have their work cut out for them.
       
      I want to thank John, Chuck, Tom and Terry and many others I do not know their names for the knowledge your provided and a special thank you to Steve H for his superior knowledge and the wonderful website he has provided.
    • By MikePfeiffer
      Just found this on the web:
      http://md-hunter.com/garrett-at-concept-new-2016-or-a-fake/
      Looks interesting.
    • By Steve Herschbach
      The following information is from an apparent leak from a First Texas distributor meeting? The link is posted at http://www.detectorprospector.com/forum/topic/555-new-fisher-pulse-induction-multi-frequency-detectors/?p=10571 as part of the thread about upcoming Fisher products that have been circulating for a couple years. These leaks seem to jive with previous statements by Tom Mallory of First Texas.

      The main one of interest to the people on this forum would be a new CZX model aimed at gold prospecting. Here is the text from the posted screen shot:

      CZX - Fisher and Teknetics
      This machine is ground breaking technology Turn on and go 2 frequency - 9:1 ratio No need to ground balance or adjust the detector to the environment It automatically senses the ground and makes changes accordingly. First detector birthed from this platform is a gold unit priced around $1000, but deeper than current VLF, this detector will also see through red dirt, and highly mineralized soil. From this platform other machines will develop. We intend to develop the CZX and MOSCA platforms to offer more machines in the $1000 to $2000 range than have ever been available. Target release 2016 We have senior engineer Dave Johnson on this project The "Mosca" platform referred to is further described and apparently is aimed more at being a general purpose non-prospecting detector (coins, jewelry, relics). Again, here is the text from the posted screen shot:

      "Mosca" Fisher and Teknetics
      Waterproof up to 10' (3 meters) Wireless headphones - Waterproof loop and connectors for headphones 2 frequency - 7:1 ratio Hobby/Treasure Market - Great for Saltwater, Relic, Coin Auto Ground Tracking Single Pod Design LCD Pad, control buttons, 2 AA batteries Arm Pad in rear Retail target - $1200 - $2000 Target release 2016 We have dedicated engineers on this project
      OK, so a gold unit around $1000 that goes deeper than current VLF designs. I also have high hopes that knowing the proclivities of the engineer, Dave Johnson, that it will be relatively light and ergonomic. Dave also prefers simple and the design statements reflect that.

      We seriously need something that brings gold detector weights and prices back to earth and so hopefully this will be it. I have stated over and over again I would be very happy with ATX equivalent performance in a less expensive lightweight package. Garrett so far seems disinclined to make that unit but they have a year at least before it may be a moot point. The CZX would have to obsolete the White's TDI as it is aimed squarely at or below the same price point and unless it beats TDI performance would be dead on arrival.

      We will not have long to wait - 2016 is coming fast!
    • By DolanDave
      Has anyone heard any new information on the Fisher/ Teknetics CZX gold machine coming out soon?  Fisher claims a new ground breaking technology, that will be able to see through highly mineralized soil, and red dirt?
      Dave
    • By Steve Herschbach
      The latest issue of the ICMJ is out, and I have an article in it titled Selectable Frequency vs Multi Frequency Detectors. Those of you with a digital subscription can read it online.
      The ICMJ has a policy against mentioning brand names in articles so I wanted to post this as a supplement to the article.
      Most metal detectors run at a single frequency. Low frequencies, that is single digit frequencies under 10 kHz, react well to high conductive targets, like coins, or large items, even if those items are of low conductivity. If you look at this typical metal detector target scale below you will note that non-ferrous items read higher not just based on conductivity but size also.

      Low frequency detectors also do not "light up" the ground or hot rocks as much as detectors operating at higher frequencies. Many do not even offer ground balance controls because a factory preset level works well enough for some uses. Low frequency machines under 10 khz therefore tend to be aimed at the coin detecting market. There are too many models to list but most people have heard of the 6.5 khz Garrett Ace 250 as a perfect example.
      High frequencies 30 khz and over have extreme sensitivity to low conductive and small items, but also struggle more with ground penetration and hot rocks. Their extreme sensitivity to tiny trash items like aluminum bits do not make them very practical for any detecting except gold prospecting. Machines 30 khz and higher tend to be dedicated prospecting machines. Examples would be the 48 khz White's GMT, 71 kHz Fisher Gold Bug 2, 56 kHz Makro Gold Racer, and 45 khz Minelab Gold Monster 1000.
      In 2002 White's introduced the White's MXT at 14 kHz, and it is a perfect example of how detectors running in the "teens" make excellent "do-it-all" detectors. Since then everyone and their brother has jumped on that bandwagon, and there are too many machines running in the 10 kHz - 20 khz region to mention. Prospectors in particular would recognize the 19 khz Fisher Gold Bug Pro, but few know it is also sold in slightly different versions as the Teknetics G2, Fisher F19, and Teknetics G2+, all 19 kHz detectors sold to the general coin and relic market. Garrett has the 15 kHz AT Pro and 18 khz AT Gold to name a couple more popular metal detectors.
      Well if low frequencies are good for coins and high frequencies good for gold, why not make machines that can do both? Or both at once?
      Selectable frequency refers to machines that can select from one of several possible frequencies, but analyze the signal from only one frequency at a time. These may also be referred to as switchable frequency detectors. Multiple or multi frequency detectors analyze the signal from two or more frequencies at once. In theory this multifrequency analysis can be done simultaneously or sequentially at a very high speed. The end resultant is the same - the results from two or more frequencies are compared to derive information that cannot be had by analyzing a single frequency alone.
      Multiple frequency detectors usually have a fundamental frequency, and then other "harmonic" or secondary frequencies they also use, but the power (amplitude) fades with distance from the primary frequency. From page 9 of Minelab's Metal Detecting Terminology:

      You can find more information on harmonic frequencies at http://www.ni.com/white-paper/3359/en/ and here also.
      Coils normally must be wound specifically to make use of any given frequency or set of harmonic frequencies. A coil will usually work best at the given fundamental frequency making it difficult to get the best possible performance at all frequencies using one coil. The Minelab X-Terra series specifically requires a coil change to achieve a frequency change for this very reason. People who own them know 3 kHz coils weigh more than 18.75 kHz coils. Why? Because heavier windings are used at 3 khz for optimum performance at that frequency.
      Here is what is probably an incomplete list of selectable frequency detectors and year of release:
      1989 Minelab Eureka Ace Dual            8 kHz    19.5 kHz
      1993 Minelab XT 17000                6.4 kHz    32 kHz
      1994 Compass X-200                6 kHz    14 khz
      1997 Minelab XT 18000            6.4 kHz    20 kHz    60 kHz
      1999 Minelab Golden Hawk        6.4 kHz    20 kHz    60 kHz
      2002 Minelab Eureka Gold        6.4 kHz    20 kHz    60 kHz
      2005 Minelab X-TERRA 50                7.5 kHz    18.75 kHz
      2006 Minelab X-TERRA 70            3 kHz    7.5 kHz    18.75 kHz
      2009 Minelab X-TERRA 305            7.5 kHz    18.75 kHz
      2009 Minelab X-TERRA 505        3 kHz    7.5 kHz    18.75 kHz
      2009 Minelab X-TERRA 705        3 kHz    7.5 kHz    18.75 kHz
      2009 XP DEUS                  4 kHz     8 kHz     12 kHz     18 kHz
      2016 Rutus Alter 71        Variable 4 - 18 kHz
      2017 Nokta Impact            5 kHz    14 kHz    20 kHz
       
      Multiple frequency or multi frequency machines have become very confusing, as a lot of marketing material has focused on the number of frequencies transmitted. What really matters is what frequencies a detector receives, and how the information is compared and processed for results. Some commentary here. Many people look at the marketing material and assume that a machine processing multiple frequencies is somehow working across the board to deliver the best possible results at all frequencies. However, the two issues outlined above do apply. The machines are employing harmonic frequencies, and so cannot compete with a machine optimized at a single frequency as opposed to one of the distant harmonics running at less amplitude. Second, making one coil run perfectly at all frequencies is extremely difficult, again giving the dedicated machine an edge.
      I highly recommend people not go down the technical rabbit hole but instead focus on what the machines do, on how they act. Two things are very apparent.
      First, the big market for a long time was coin detectors, and the goal always was to identify coins as deep as possible while ignoring trash as well as possible. Processing two or more frequencies simultaneously gives the detector engineer more information to work with. All the focus was on developing great coin detectors and guess what, the multi frequency machines for all intents and purposes act just like very good lower frequency coin detecting machines. Good ground rejection, and great discrimination on coins for as deep as it can be achieved. The multi frequency machines don't really go deeper than single frequency coin detectors, they just do a better job delivering clean discrimination results to depth.
      Here is a list of introductory models of multi frequency detectors and year of introduction. I am not listing all the derivative models to reduce clutter. I will post that later. 
      1991 Fisher CZ-6            5 & 15 kHz
      1991 Minelab Sovereign            BBS
      1999 Minelab Explorer S/XS        FBS
      2001 White's DFX            3 kHz & 15 kHz (Simulates single frequency by ignoring half the dual frequency signal)
      2012 Minelab CTX 3030            FBS2
       
      Second, single frequency detectors have a ground balance problem. They can ground balance to mineralized soil, OR they can ground balance to salt water. Multi frequency machines can reduce signals from both mineralized beaches and salt water simultaneously, making them ideal for saltwater use.
      1993 Minelab Excalibur   BBS (Sovereign in waterproof housing)
      1995 Fisher CZ-20             5 & 15 kHz (CZ-6 in waterproof housing)
      2001 White's Beach Hunter ID   3 & 15 kHz (DFX in waterproof housing)
       
      There is a third class of machine that can run either as selectable frequency OR multi frequency detectors. Quite rare at this time. 
      2009 White's Spectra Vision   2.5 Khz or 7.5 kHz or 22.5 kHz or all three at once
      2017 Minelab Equinox   5 kHz or 10 kHz or 15 kHz or 20 kHz or 40 kHz plus multi frequency options
       
      In my opinion multi frequency has delivered well on its promise. The Minelab BBS and FBS machines are renowned for their ability to discriminate trash and detect coins due to their sophisticated processing. Again, focus on what they do. Not even Minelab in their marketing tells anyone these are prospecting detectors. Second, the Fisher CZ-20/21 and various Minelab Excalibur models are without a doubt the most popular and successful non-PI saltwater beach detectors made.
      I have a DFX and I think it is a fantastic jewelry machine in particular. A good coin machine but lacks a bit of punch. The Vision/V3i upped the ante but while amazing on paper suffers from interface overload. The Minelab units are simple by comparison and a lesson on how people in general just want the detector to get the job done. Feature overload is not a plus. However, I think White's has the right idea. The ability to run either separate frequencies or multiple frequencies at once is very compelling. I just think nobody has really done it right yet in a properly configured package. The V3i has the ingredients, but needs to be stuffed in something like an MX Sport with a simplified interface and improved ground balance system. It really never did beat the MXT in some ways and many people when "upgrading" to the V3i end up going back to the MXT.
      Selectable frequency has yet to really deliver on its promise in my opinion. So far it has been difficult to produce a selectable frequency machine that truly performs at all frequencies on par with a dedicated single frequency machine. The Minelab Eureka Gold at 60 kHz just never gets mentioned in the same breath as the White's Goldmasters/GMT or Fisher Gold Bug 2. Also, most selectable frequency machines in the past have been very feature limited prospecting machines, restricting their overall market appeal. 
      I personally think we have seen enough variations of single frequency detectors. I do not believe much can be done to exceed the performance of the dedicated single frequency VLF type machines we currently have. What can obviously be done is a better job of packaging machines that deliver true punch at different frequencies, or multi frequency machines that bring across the board performance closer to what is expected of PI detectors. I do think we are seeing this happen now. The new Nokta Impact and the new DEUS V4 update are expanding the available options in selectable frequency in more usable packages. The Minelab GPZ and other hybrid platforms blur the line between what is traditionally considered PI and VLF and simply need the addition of discrimination to go to the next level. There is still a lot of potential to deliver machines that might reduce the number of machines many of us feel compelled to own by delivering more across the board performance in a single machine that would now take several detectors. Exciting days ahead.
      For those who want to try and get their head around selectable frequency and multi frequency technology, Minelab and White's have a gold mine of information in a few of their references. Dig into the following for some great explanations and diagrams.
      Minelab - Metal Detector Basics and Theory
      Minelab - Understanding Your X-Terra
      White's - Spectra V3i Owners Guide
      White's - V3i Advanced Users Guide
      Better yet are the last three parts of the DFX instructional video by White's featuring engineer Mark Rowan explaining frequency and multi frequency methods:
       
       
       
    • By Steve Herschbach
      Steve's Law of Target Depletion - All good locations with high value targets will eventually be detected until no metal can be found. When any location contains items of great perceived value, detector technology will normally be applied in reverse order of aggressiveness. First will be VLF discrimination "cherry picking". This will be followed by varying degrees of "turning down the discrimination" to dig iffy targets and by using the barest of ferrous/non-ferrous discrimination. This will finally be followed by all metal detecting to remove masking effects by either VLF or PI detectors. If the location is considered good enough all targets will eventually over time be completely removed until no detector is able to acquire a target. At this point a site may be considered "hunted out" until a new technology arrives allowing for more depth or ground separation capability, when a few more remaining metal items will be removed. The key concept is that since discrimination is unreliable, all metal must be removed from high value locations in order to rest assured nothing has been overlooked.

      Nugget hunters and beach hunters get right with the program. If a nugget "patch" is located it will be relentlessly pounded until no metal remains. Beaches survive by being a renewable resource. Good relic locations can and will be subjected to the same attention given to nugget patches. The rule is that as long as you can find a piece of metal hope remains that good items can be found. If not you, somebody else can and will return until no metal remains. I have promoted PI detectors for all uses for this very reason for over 10 years now - see that last few paragraphs at www.losttreasure.com from 2005.
      Most people consider depth to be problem number one, but for many areas target masking is by far the more serious issue. Until detectors can actually see through trash instead of blocking it out, even the smallest surface trash can and will block deeper adjacent items from being detected. Superb discrimination only gets you so far and ultimately the only solution is to remove the surface trash to see what lurks below. The only real limitation we face in this regard is in areas sensitive to digging holes of any sort, like a well groomed park. Even there, slow careful extraction of surface trash over time can reveal old coins missed by others for decades.
      Beneath The Mask by Thomas Dankowski
×