Jump to content

New Tool For The Cache Hunter

Recommended Posts

I scanned the brochure and it looks to be an X-Ray imager only -- that is, no spectroscopy to identify elemental composition.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hard part of this particular item seems be locating the price.   Its seems to be a closely guarded secret.   I'm hesitant to make contact as I'm not particularly wanting all the email spam and phone calls that will become a part of my everyday life from making contact with the company.  

One of the key attributes of the Whites V3 is its ability to search walls and floors and identify whats behind them.  All the normal metal in the wall or a floor has a V3 spectra-graph signature.   You can easily map a wall or a floor, or a ceiling for that matter, and locate any metallic anomalies.   However you can't actually see the object.   But this can actually show you, and not only show metallic items but non-metallic items as well.   This is a huge jump forward for those treasure hunters who are into structures if they could swing the price.

I'm not sure how well it might do in looking at dirt.  I'd imagine well enough to search the top two to five inches of grass root depth, maybe.  






  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we put it on a little plastic sled to pull around the park. Aim a small wireless camera at the screen to send to cell phone. But something tells me it costs more than my Time Ranger Pro! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Hillis said:

I'm not sure how well it might do in looking at dirt.

I misunderstood your original excitement.  I see now you really do want an imager.  Here's quick-and-dirty Back-of-the-Envelope (BoE) approximation.  The brochure (your link) has a table for the penetration depth in various materials which I reproduce here:


Fortunately (according to a Google search) the specific gravity of dirt is around 2.65, which is quite close to pure aluminum at 2.7 with its common alloys typically 2.8 --> 3.0.  Another nice thing is that with the energies of the X-rays in this device, materials made up of low atomic number elements, which Aluminum, Oxygen, and Silicon all qualify, as do plant matter constituents that might be in the dirt, other attenuation processes that depend upon more than just density aren't relevant.  What I'm saying is that density alone is the dominant component of penetration depth.

Unfortunately the table says only about half an inch penetration through aluminum so unless the soil is considerably less dense (in which case you can possibly find another match in the table) I don't think you can peer much deeper into the ground than 0.5 to 1 inch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are just dreaming anyway, though peat based loam is considerably less dense than normal soils. Another related subject is normal fishfinders and advanced acoustic devices. They can penetrate bottom sediments for some distance and could possibly see small gold items at shallow depth in beach sand. Gold being denser would present better than aluminum to such a device. https://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/neil.mitchell/sonar/pen.html



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
  • Similar Content

    • By Gerry in Idaho
      I thought I was pretty damn good, but this technology has me beat.
      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?
    • By Rick N. MI
      I mostly hunt in lakes and the bottoms are mostly all sand. A test on a sandy beach with the Equinox 800 and Xp Orx, both hit hard on a 14k 3.7 gram gold ring buried at 14". For mild ground I don't see a need for multi frequency. I do like the multiple frequencies on the Orx.
      Is there an advantage to multi frequency in mild ground?
    • By Steve Herschbach
      We have the Deus 2 just announced, Nokta/Makro Multi on the way, possibly the next generation Equinox from Minelab, and maybe even another Garrett multifrequency model to follow Apex, all coming in 2022. I guess we should even toss First Texas in there, as they just officially discontinued the CZ-3D, with the possibility something new will replace it soon. If this does not mean we are moving past single frequency, I don’t know what does. Or are we? There will no doubt always be a place for a finely tuned single frequency detector. However, if you consider Deus as selectable frequency, and Equinox as selectable/multi, then very many of us have already moved past a simple single frequency detector as our primary detectors.
      This is the thread to speculate on what is coming, where we are, and where we are headed. 2022 is shaping up as the year SMF (simultaneous multifrequency) finally takes off for real. In some detectors, it’s just companies chasing the latest marketing catchword. Multifrequency is only as good as the way it is implemented, otherwise we’d all have been swinging White’s DFX ages ago. It’s not enough to make a SMF detector, it also has to have genuine performance advantages. About the only given is that any multifrequency machine will outperform a single frequency on a saltwater beach. The rest, however, is very much up in the air.
      For some detailed explanation of the technology, and a history of past selectable and simultaneous multifrequency detectors, see my write up on Selectable Frequency And Multiple Frequency
      Where it all started, Fisher CZ-6 and Minelab Sovereign, both released in 1991. I think Fisher wins claim to being first, since Minelab takes a swipe at them in their Sovereign introduction. Notice how the misdirection on transmitted versus received and processed started on day one. 

      Fisher CZ-6 Quicksilver. The technology: Dual frequency Fourier Domain Signal Analysis. Patented state-of-the-art analog/digital electronics transmit two VLF signals (one 5 kHz, one at 15 kHz) deep into mineralized soil. The receiver circuitry had two ground compensated target signals to analyze, compare and identify. The result? Deeper targets, more accurate target identification. Wet sand is no problem for the CZ-6, it compensates for salt and ground mineralization simultaneously! Source Fisher CZ-6 Datasheet

      "The Sovereign" is the first of the latest generation of metal detectors from Minelab featuring Minelab's new technology called Broad Band Spectrum or BBS for short. This revolutionary new technology which is unique to Minelab has already been awarded patents in the USA, Canada and Australia and has several pending. Unlike other metal detectors which operate at just one frequency, or even the "newest" two frequency machines, "The Sovereign" actually transmits over a wide spectrum of frequencies. The resulting signal that is received from a target buried in the ground is processed by a microprocessor that removes interference caused by ground mineralization which limits the depth at which targets can be found, and often results in inaccurate target identification. The remaining signal can then be analysed to determine the actual composition of targets even if they are deeply buried, or if the ground is mineralized or salt water is present. Thus it is the only detector that can simultaneously reject both salt and mineralization while at the same time accurately discriminating the target, making it ideal for black sand beaches and many desert areas. In many areas that are highly mineralized and have been heavily searched in the past, "The Sovereign" will prove that many of the valuable targets are still there waiting for a Treasure Hunter with the proper detector to locate them. Source Minelab Sovereign Instruction Manual
    • By mh9162013
      I love coinshooting, and I'm often in my local parks or private permissions searching for clad and silver coins. But I noticed that when digging up shallow clad coins (3 inches or less), my AT Max with the stock coil would say the coin is 6 inches down. Sometimes, a surface coin would read at being 4 inches deep. I didn't think this was that big of a deal, b/c I could always pull out my F-Pulse and see if the assumed coin target was truly shallow or not. Also, the incorrect depth reading wasn't keeping me from digging a desired target.
      Tonight, I read:
      Both of these mentioned anomolies or issues with DD coils and shallow targets. Is what I'm experiencing with my shallow coins and AT Max one of these anomolies? Or is there something else going on?
  • Create New...