Jump to content

New Detector Tech??


Recommended Posts

I wont mention the brand for fears of any bias against the manufacturer. This is one for the tech heads on here, what does the following quote mean to you, is there any substance in it?

 

Quote

Referring to (engineers name omitted), there are 2 rotating fields (High and Low frequencies) both set at "super" position in 1 point. 2 signals obtained from (detector name) coil are mathematically processed and merged into 1 signal that is displayed and sounded by detector

 

Now here is one for the nugget hunters on here, how does this compare to existing top of the line gold detectors?

 

Quote

DD coil with upper frequency 45 kHz is designed to be used on conductive grounds.

Even slightly conductive grounds make such extra sensitive frequencies as 40-50 kHz useless in ground conditions especially within ferroxide mineralization.

Subject *** DD coil produces the same "air" depth in ground conditions even if they are conductive and mineralized at the same time.

Technical parameters of the coil

Size:
6"x10", its performance is equal to round 7,5" coil
Simultaneous Frequencies: 2,5 kHz and 45 kHz running at once
Depth in ground: gold nugget with size of match head and gross weight 0,4 gram / 12 cms

*** suppresses influence of conductive and mineralized grounds perfectly without depth loss. That is why coils with such high frequencies could be used in hash conditions. *** technology has great potential in gold prospecting

I think, *** will be a gold prospecting metal detector as well.

 
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Just sounds like multi frequency. That's not new per se. V3i for instance running at 2.5, 7.5 and 22.5 kHz. Multi frequency so far has not normally been used in nugget detectors since more punch can normally be had by optimizing a single frequency.

From the White's V3i Instruction Manual:

science-behind-whites-v3i-multi-frequency-detector.jpg

"What does multi-frequency do for depth and discrimination? The truth is, any time a detector is simultaneously transmitting more than one frequency, the transmit energy must be divided amongst the frequencies. Therefore, a single frequency detector can usually squeeze out slightly more depth than a multi-frequency design at that certain frequency. But this is an advantage only at one frequency, which tends to favor only a narrow range of targets.

This is where a multi-frequency detector such as the Spectra V3i really shines. V3i transmits at 2.5kHz, 7.5kHz, and 22.5kHz, making it simultaneously “hot” on silver, relics, and gold. Single frequency detectors are unable to have peak performance over such a wide range of targets. This is an advantage not only in detecting desirable targets, but also in discriminating out undesirable targets. So multi-frequency detectors get excellent depth over a much wider range of targets, and do a better job of identifying targets. But Spectra V3i can also beat single frequency detectors at their own game: V3i has the ability to run in single frequency mode using any of its three frequencies, and the transmit waveform is optimized to put all the energy into that one frequency. So if you want to hunt for only deep silver or only gold jewelry, V3i can be optimized for these tasks.

A final advantage of multi-frequency is the ability to simultaneously balance ferrous ground mineralization and conductive salt ground. Single frequency detectors cannot do this, and usually struggle in wet salt sand unless the sensitivity is turned down significantly."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like most others this tech stuff goes over my head a bit, I come from a mechanical engineering background not an electronic one. I know this sounds just like other multi frequency detectors, but according to this engineer, he claims that this detector is the

Quote

first ever detector to simultaneously transmit and receive 2 frequencies at the same time

Whites, Fisher and Minelab multi frequencies have also being quoted in that they do not do so in real life thus this is first ever truly real multi frequency detector. Hence why I am asking is there any substance in these statements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Not the part about being first. Where do you figure White's, Fisher, and Minelab "do not do so in real life"?

LOL don't shoot the messenger, not me Steve, the Engineer in question quoted this, but I think the emphasis being this tech will the first ever to transmit and sample at the SAME time, which implies others alternate between either transmit or sampling the different frequencies???

Once again I am just wondering is there any substance in these claims? and if so would it have any benefit to us detectors? How does the depth claims on the 0.4g nugget stack up against existing tech?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, and everything I've ever read about the V3i, this is the first time I've seen it claimed that its frequencies are not transmitted and received simultaneously.

 

What about the DFX (never had one), I thought that machine was dual frequency simultaneous transmit/receive.

 

Something isn't translating well, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shoot the messenger? Just asking a question about a statement. CZ, BBS, FBS, DFX, V3i all transmit, receive and process two or more frequencies simultaneously or close enough so as to not matter. No credible source claims otherwise. The only dispute I have ever seen is over how many frequencies are being processed at once, but all agree on at least two.

It honestly does not matter. Whether single or multiple the same limitations for VLF max depth exist. Single frequency sets the standard for raw depth. Multiple frequency for ground handling and discrimination.

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they process the frequencies in a better and different way. That's fine. But I don't care who it is, Whites, Fisher, Minelab, etc. I will be a skeptic of any claims for max depth that exceed currently available technology. Better ground handling or better discrimination / separation through better processing? Sure. Max depth? Not so much.

As far as a claim of 0.4 gram nugget at 4.7 inches? Sure, It's possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, people confuse possible maximum raw depth with attainable results in the field. Air tests basically tell you what is theoretically possible, and in soil or sand with essentially no magnetic or conductive mineral content these theoretical maximums can be attained. Some people still use old fashioned 100 kHz TR detectors from the 70's as a "secret weapon" in certain Florida white sand situations.

It really is all about how you eliminate the ground while still attempting to get the theoretical max air test depth. All ground elimination systems work via some sort of subtractive method. In general, the more ground signal you eliminate, the more adverse the effect on a broader range of desirable targets.

One ground elimination method may eliminate certain targets another ground elimination method reveals. The GPZ 7000 does not in theory "go deeper" than a GPX 5000. There are nuggets a GPX sees just fine with its ground elimination method. The GPZ will find them no deeper. However, there are nuggets that the GPX has a hard time seeing that a GPZ will detect much better due to a different ground elimination method being employed. The GPZ therefore appears to detect these nuggets deeper than the GPX.

In reality the GPX detects them also. But then it applies a type of ground elimination that ignores the nuggets along with the type of ground it is ignoring. Is the GPZ going deeper, or is it just not as blind to certain targets? Does it matter which is which from a practical perspective?

This is why I assert max depth has been attained, yet we do on occasion get detectors that appear to go deeper. It is an illusion. If detector A can't find a coin in the middle of a bunch of nails, and detector B can, which detector is going deeper? Surely the one that can find the target, right? In reality detector B just uses a method to reveal a target that detector A also detects but cannot report with its processing method.

There are almost always trades to be made. Detector B succeeds by using a very fast filtering method that chops off signals quickly. This helps it separate adjacent targets. Detector A uses a slow filter, but this allows it to enhance faint deep signals to get better raw depth and so it hits deep targets detector B misses.

So back to the original question. Is it possible this company (AKA for those not into mystery) is using a method that reveals some targets not seen as well by detectors employing different methods? I would be surprised if that were not the case. Most detectors are good at some things and not as good at others, which is why I own several. Am I ready to ditch everything else and get one? No. There will be limitations. There always are. If you think however they are doing something really different just based on the claims made, I am not seeing it.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve I think you have hit the nail on the head there, AKA, yes it AKA by the way, have they developed some way of ground compensation that is ahead of others, maybe? They certainly have done it with single frequency units by including the "ground zone" in their detection range that other companies eliminate, so is it feasible to say that their multi frequency units will include something others have missed? time will tell but by looking are various claims and videos, there just might be some substance to it?

Saying all that leads me back to the original question, does the tech being used compensate grounds better than existing tech. Most grounds have some sort of mineralisation and compensating for this better could actually push the bar out a bit further than single frequency units on ground with any form of mineralisation?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ringmoney said:

does the tech being used compensate grounds better than existing tech.

OK, but you are asking detailed opinions about a detector none of us have ever seen and employing a technology that the engineer wont go into exact detail about (for good reason to protect proprietary information). I guess the only answer that can be offered for sure is that we will have to wait and see.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...