Jump to content

Metal Detector Basics And Theory by Bruce Candy, Minelab


1 Screenshot

About This File

Metal Detector Basics And Theory by Bruce Candy, Minelab

1.42 MB pdf file, 24 pages

Bruce is a co-founder of Minelab and the man behind their most advanced designs. This information delves into much greater detail than the above link and has many more illustrations and diagrams.

Minelab Metal Detector Forum

  • Like 1

  • Similar Content

    • By diggindaboot
      THIS !! All the people boo hooing will be in line to get one at that price point. It will also force the hand of ML with their price structure. ML raised their price on the 800 and NM absolutely crushed that price point. The Legend doesn't have to be better, just equal to turn the fortunes in their favor. ML and their arrogant "obsolete" charge is foolish. Obsolete by definition means no longer produced or used. Many detectorist and their single frequency machines are still out there making great finds and having fun. Furthermore, single frequency detectors are still being made and sold. NM build quality is far and away superior to the Nox detectors. 
       
       
    • By Gerry in Idaho
      I thought I was pretty damn good, but this technology has me beat.
      https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/mining-gap-companies-push-find-raw-materials-electric-vehicle-boom-rcna5077
      Might be time to invest?
    • By mcjtom
      Metal detectors often seem to have a 'Depth Gauge'.  How is it calculated? Is it the strength (or inverse of it) of the amplitude of the return signal?  So, for instance, everything else being equal, the 'deep' target would mean either a stronger target at greater depth or a weaker shallow target?
    • By GB_Amateur
      While we're all abuzz with the announcement and advertised feature and performance characteristics of the XP Deus II, I'm wondering about tests that distinguish between detectors' target separation abilities.  'Word on the street' is that in trashy iron sites, the original Deus is still the best available.  Presumably those reports are based upon in-field testing, which of course is the real proof.  But the downside is, (AFAIK) these are qualitative observations, not quantitative.  Subjectivity involved?  Unfortunately, yes.
      We do have Monte's Nail Board Test for a special case -- iron nails near a single coin, all in the same plane and typically all on the surface of the ground.  Add depth combined with some mineralization (burying the MNB) and you've included another real world dimension.  But in the field, multiple nearby targets are seldom in the same plane.
      So you hopefully see the purpose of this post.  Has anyone seen/tried other methods to better simulate actual in-field conditions to differentiate between competing detectors to best be able to handle trashy sites?
×
×
  • Create New...