Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Here’s a topic for all you “Rocket Scientists” out there (and anyone else who’d like to chime in).

I was having a discussion with another dealer.  He felt that single frequency worked better because there’s a certain amount of performance loss with Multi.  I was always of the opinion that Multi-Frequency was the best for most types of Metal Detecting.  It allows you to hit ALL the targets that react better to certain kHz.

Here’s an example from another hobby of mine (most of us have more than one).  I shoot muzzle loading guns.  The “Round Ball” type projectile that was used for hundreds of years performs best when shot out of a rifled barrel with a slow twist.  Twist refers to the how many inches of flight it (the projectile) takes to make one revolution.  The conical bullet came out during the Civil War and requires a faster twist.  For modern muzzle loading rifles a slow twist would be 1 turn in 56, 60, 66, 70, etc. inches. For conicals, 32, 28, 24, etc. inches.  In the 70s, one company came up with the idea of a “Compromise” twist; 1 tun in 48”.  That way you only have to buy one gun.  You can use Round Balls for Target shooting and Conicals for hunting.  It shoots both “well”.

Having said all that, does the Single Frequency work better than the Multi?  Is there any kind of lack of performance or trade off having them (kHz) work simultaneously?

Thanks!

Walt

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a great question for Carl Moreland at GeoTech.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts is it would alter the impedance of the coil for each frequency. If that was the case one coil might be better than another with different frequency. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve's reply is very accurate. MF trades off raw depth for other benefits. For any given MF detector, it will go slightly deeper in a SF mode depending on the target. Ferinstance, in MF mode the White's V3 will detect a nickel & quarter very equally. In 2.5k-only mode it gets the quarter deeper than MF but the nickel less; in 22.5k-only mode it gets the nickel deeper but the quarter less.

Also, an MF machine is a wide-band design and will tend to be noisier than a dedicated SF machine which is narrowband. An MF machine run in SF mode is very likely still wideband and not as potentially quiet as a dedicated narrowband SF machine.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Geotech said:

Steve's reply is very accurate. MF trades off raw depth for other benefits. For any given MF detector, it will go slightly deeper in a SF mode depending on the target. Ferinstance, in MF mode the White's V3 will detect a nickel & quarter very equally. In 2.5k-only mode it gets the quarter deeper than MF but the nickel less; in 22.5k-only mode it gets the nickel deeper but the quarter less.

Also, an MF machine is a wide-band design and will tend to be noisier than a dedicated SF machine which is narrowband. An MF machine run in SF mode is very likely still wideband and not as potentially quiet as a dedicated narrowband SF machine.

 

Do you think they could make the Nox better by  using specific coils like say a coil made more for  saltwater use  in the beach modes?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Geotech said:

Steve's reply is very accurate. MF trades off raw depth for other benefits. For any given MF detector, it will go slightly deeper in a SF mode depending on the target. Ferinstance, in MF mode the White's V3 will detect a nickel & quarter very equally. In 2.5k-only mode it gets the quarter deeper than MF but the nickel less; in 22.5k-only mode it gets the nickel deeper but the quarter less.

Also, an MF machine is a wide-band design and will tend to be noisier than a dedicated SF machine which is narrowband. An MF machine run in SF mode is very likely still wideband and not as potentially quiet as a dedicated narrowband SF machine.

 

What evidence is there that a MF loses depth in MF mode?

What do you mean by a MF machine will be 'noisier'?

I'm looking at getting a MF detector, currently have the Nokta Simplex but don't like it as there is too much chatter even with low sensitivity and ground balance.

The MF machines I'm looking at are the Minelab Vanquish 540, Minelab Equinox 600 or 800, or the new Garrett Ace Apex. There is unclear information about what frequencies they use then in multi-frequency mode, and what difference it makes. The Apex doesn't have 40khz for example. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chatter on the Simplex might be the mineralization, did you try to nudge up the discrimination? I have the Multi Kruzer and can trim that out and get the machine to run nice and quiet even in some of the most horrid conditions. Had it in the river which is tidal yesterday, found a paper thin Indian Head penny about 8-10" down in hard pack gravel with tons of iron. My buddy had difficulties ground balancing his Nox 800 in the same area, not because it is MF vs SF but because those large round coils can be difficult in some areas. I found the MK to be a very high gain machine in general, running it at 3/4 the sensitivity tames it down but nice to have power under the hood. I think most people run them just too high making them sparky with irradic id #'s as they are very sensitive machines.

You may want to check out the eliptical coil for the Simplex, Sven did some testing on them.

The Apex looks to be a very tame smooth running MF machine. Being splash proof puts it ahead of the Vanquish but probably not a Nox 800 killer. The eliptical dd looks like it will be pretty universal, be nice to see what other coils come out for it.

I have found the Garrett machines to be very tame except the AT Max which is chattery. From the little bits I have seen on the Apex it appears to be as stable as the AT Pro but with MF so id #'s are probably much more accurate. Note there is only 1 coil for the Apex right now. Apex only runs at 5, 10, 15, 20khz. Nox 800 going upto 40khz can be used for tiny gold ie gold prospecting.

Apex should work very well with those key frequencies for the majority of detecting. Salt water hunting, lower frequencies do better.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dances With Doves said:

Do you think they could make the Nox better by  using specific coils like say a coil made more for  saltwater use  in the beach modes?

Any time you run multiple frequencies (as a beach mode would) the coil is, by necessity, a compromise. A coil optimized for high freq nugget hunting isn't optimized for low freq deep silver, so there could be optimized SF specialty coils. The nice thing about a wideband machine is it is less finicky about coil parametrics and easily corrected for in software, assuming you know what coil is being run. And ML has a coil ID chip in each coil that does that.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, crow said:

What evidence is there that a MF loses depth in MF mode?

See the example in my post. In general, any MF design will be slightly hotter on particular targets in SF mode than in MF mode, unless it has been software-corrected to slightly dumb down the SF mode(s) to match the MF mode.

Quote

What do you mean by a MF machine will be 'noisier'?

I was speaking specifically to EMI, which is better coupled in a wideband (MF) design than a dedicated SF design. But an MF design may (or may not) do better with ground noise.

Both issues are relative to a particular design and may not compare well to other designs. Ferinstance, the V3 is slightly better on deep silver in 2.5k-only mode than in MF mode. Yet a different MF detector in MF mode may beat the V3 in 2.5k-only mode on deep silver. Same thing with noise... it's possible that a particular wideband (MF) detector will handle EMI better than a particular dedicated SF detector just because the guy who designed the wideband detector did a better job paying attention to the details. But if you took that same wideband design and converted it to narrowband it should come out even quieter.

  • Like 1
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 GB_Amateur
      This is a topic relevant to every(?) form of detecting -- ground coverage.  I'll list several questions concerns I've had but any replies of course aren't limited to these, nor do they need to address  any of them.  Just tossing out some ideas to prompt further discussion.
      1) What methods and efforts do you apply to ensure full ground coverage in the cases where that is one of your goals?
      2) Is your sweep a straight line path or an arc?
      3) How long is your sweep?
      4) How much do you overlap consecutive sweeps in the direction you walk?
      5) How much do you overlap side-to-side swings when following parallel paths (e.g. when walking two side-by-side swaths in the same direction how much does the left end of one path overlap the right end of the next path or vice-versa)?
      6) Have you ever measured your coverage?  How well do detectors with GPS (e.g. Minelab GPZ-7000 and Minelab CTX-3030) monitor ground coverage to this detail?  Have you used other devices to measure ground coverage.  E.g. I can imagine a drone with camera could provide useful data.  Are there smartphones app that would help quantify coverage?
       
    • By nebulanoodle
      Just dreaming...
      What'dya think? Minelab technology going on the next moon mission?
      X6 must be space-worthy.
    • By AUgetter
      If this question has been addressed elsewhere, I apologize in advance and hope someone can give me a link for it.  I have noticed that other companies besides Minelab are coming out with PI detectors for less than $3K.  How do these detectors compare to the best Minelab detectors for Gold and also relic hunting?
    • By JCR
      On the Anfibio Multi (and I think Kruzer & others) there is a definite step in sensitivity between 39&40 Gain and again between 69&70 Gain. Is this a change in the Internal Threshold? In a way this would be the inverse of the way the F75 adjusts sensitivity according to Mike Hillis.  Regardless, it is a very good set up in difficult sites. Most NM users know about the difference in response speed between 89 & 90 Gain on 3DI. This is different. I had read about these steps in a forum post that quoted Alper of NM. I can't seem to find that post now that I want to re read it.
    • By jasong
      https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2021016649A1/en?assignee=minelab&scholar&oq=minelab&sort=new
      This is the most out of this world Minelab detector patent I've ever read. There is so much here, some very sci-fi like, I don't even know where to start. My takeaway is they seem to be positioning themselves for a drone based detector eventually (main details in this patent could be easily transferred to a drone based platform - IMU, GPS, magnetometer, heads up display, FPV, remote control, robotic/vehicle mount, etc) . That is 100% a guess. But in the meantime, there is some interesting, novel items in the pipeline that we might actually see on a machine in closer future?
      No clue if this is a coin machine or gold machine or if it's something they are actually working on right now or just trying to get control patents on such things for the future which may or may not arrive. One thing is for certain, Minelab is BUSY in the engineering department. A few of the highlights:
      Heads up display over glasses/head mounted display (aka augmented reality). Settings, target visualization, shading of detected/not detected areas (I asked for this specifically 5 or 6 years ago here, awesome to see it in a patent now). Plus a camera showing the coil (why would you need that if not operating remotely as from a drone?) The detector has a camera, IMU (accelerometer) and magnetometer to determine position with accuracy. The IMU tracks the position of the coil in real time in relation to both the ground and the target, and combined with the camera video feed will provide a "visual" of the target in the ground through the glasses/head display, as in form of a heat map which increases accuracy with each pass of a coil over the target. A GPS tracks the machine position to properly map the IMU/coil visual target data on the ground and let's a user see the mapping as they detect. This data is recorded for future historical use and can be shared.  Centimeter accuracy with the visual target heat mapping. Potential operators/users include entities other than humans such as "robots" and "an AI (artificial intelligence) using a metal detector" and this line: "The metal detector may be handheld, mounted on a robotic arm of a vehicle or a robot."  Wireless connectivity to computers and phones, transfer of files containing settings configurations from instructors or expert users Remote control of the metal detector through apps on laptops or phones Ability to upload maps, including detecting data, historic human activity, buildings, or other items that seem to indicate custom mapping capability Internet connectivity, potential control through the internet (again, why if not for a drone type device?) "Teamspeak" to other detecting members in the area wirelessly Visual/spatial discrimination Accurate depth measurement Synthesized audio mode, eliminating noise completely and allowing the detector to "recreate" a synthetic audio stream based on data from prior swings Delayed audio processing (enhanced audio) mode or real time audio mode, ability to seperate multiple close targets, reason for this I venture a guess why below ---> This patent actually seems to be describing a completely new method of RX in a detector. Which is actually similar in some ways to the wacky idea I had years ago of reducing EMI/ground noise by emulating a radio telescope array. But in this case they appear to be describing a fairly ingenuous method of doing something similar with only one coil by monitoring RX of the same target at different points in the swing (with the IMU tracking these points) and combining all those RX signals. In this way (and this is my guess, the patent doesn't explain this), you can form a sort of comparator, gradiometer, or interferometer to seperate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. If that's what they are doing, then I find it to be brilliant. If not, then I just gave them one hell of an idea to patent for the future. 
      That probably sounds like jibberish to non-engineers. But I want people to understand the brilliance in simple terms. Consider this: EMI is random. At any given point in your swing you'll get noise here, but not there. So if you compare two points in the same swing, you will hear noise one point but not the other point because the "zap" already ended. But you might hear a good target at both points in the swing since it's not random like EMI, it's always there in the ground. So, you can effectively eliminate EMI by comparing what signal is not there at two very close points in the swing, and keep the target since it's always there.
      Similarly, with ground, the ground changes as the alluvium changes since soil is inhomogeneous. But a target is still the target. So, a similar method can be applied to the ground.
      In theory, you could use ideas like this to essentially get rid of the Difficult type timings and keep your gains boosted high, and deal with EMI/ground in this way instead which does not require reducing sensitivity. A totally new, novel approach to RX in a metal detector. The audio processing is very slightly delayed because they are using that time to compare measurements at a few different coil positions before letting the audio processor signal that there is a target present. That's my guess. If that isn't what they are doing, then someone else should patent that and thank me for it later when Minelab buys it. Either way, they have something totally new in the RX department here. And the future of detecting looks bright and interesting to me still.
    • By WhiteRabbit
      Hello, now here’s an opener that might just get me banned on my first post!
      Bear with me, my intentions are pure :)
      Does anyone know if it would be possible to jam an MD signal? The reason I ask is to combat the evident problem we have in the UK with “nighthawks”, illegal detectorists.
      Over here, any landowner can grant permission for detecting on their land (with caveats, known historic sites are protected by law). What often happens is that such a permission is granted and a detectorist innocently sets about his / her business. Someone less scrupulous spots this person and assumes there may be something important there, so shows up at night with a couple of friends and the landowner awakens to a field / lawn full of holes, then bans metal detecting.
      Historic sites are also looted.
      Just an off the wall question, how tricky would it be to build a device to block this on a piece of land? Anyone any ideas?
×
×
  • Create New...