Iron Bias Fe Versus Fe2

[Chase Goldman 3,920]

3 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

If I understand the new comparison correctly it could be that FE could help better ID'ing the targets I recovered under those in-field conditions.

I am missing how you are concluding that. Can you elaborate?

[Steve Herschbach 29,401]

8 hours ago, GB_Amateur said:

I do appreciate this -- please don't take this the wrong way.  But it has my head spinning.  The diagram (possibly wrong) is easier for me to understand.  So let me ask this (specifically my understanding/interpretation of what you said) and please tell me if I got it right:

Start with the diagram as shown above.  Move the top scale (original FE Iron Bias) all the way to the left.  This means the left edges of both zero bins line up.  Then scrunch the FE (top) scale down so that the right edge of the FE (top) scale is just inside the 0-->1 border of the F2 (lower) scale.

Is that consistent with what you've said?

Could be.  Trying to integrate/correlate the old FE settings and new FE2 settings may be a waste of time. They could be using two different methodologies and are therefore just two different things. I'm sold on FE2, especially after EL NINO77s comments on separation effects. Assuming one is going to use Iron Bias, is there any reason at all to use the old original version? In theory it has a finer gradation of adjustment, but is that of any actual value?

[Chase Goldman 3,920]

13 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Trying to integrate/correlate the old FE settings and new FE2 settings may be a waste of time. They could be using two different methodologies and are therefore just two different things. I'm sold on FE2, especially after EL NINO77s comments on separation effects. Assuming one is going to use Iron Bias, is there any reason at all to use the old original version?

Agree.  We are now probably talking about two completely different approaches to iron bias.  EL NINO77's results tend give FE worse separation and Steve's results tend to give FE less "effectiveness" vs. F2.  If EL NINO77's results hold, then that is a real eye opener regarding FE.  Almost as if ML's first attempt at iron bias was severely flawed.  The other thing that is flawed and as recently mentioned above, is why not a detailed Treasure Talk article on how to properly apply iron bias (both types) and when one might be preferred over the other and the plusses and minuses of cranking the magnitude of the IB setting.  They obviously put some effort into refining IB, it would be great if they explained it better and in more detail..  Also, to emphasize the implied preference of F2 they should have implemented it in a manner such that it could be cranked to "go to 11".  That would make F2 "two better" than FE. 

Edited September 9 by Chase Goldman
Steve's quote got cut off, fixed that.

[Dances With Doves 339]

When I hunted a lake thinking I was in f2 but was in fe I dug over 50 caps even in fe-9.I  corrected my mistake after by putting it in f2 -7 and the caps sounded bad an I could tell they were     caps to a high  degree.I  don't use the fe setting   anymore.I hope  they come up with a new FI setting that would rival the Deus in very thick  iron.We would have fe,f2,and  fi for iron bias.

[GB_Amateur 3,597]

14 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

I am missing how you are concluding that. Can you elaborate?

I probably got this backward.  I did say in the earlier post (asking Steve about the new matching of the scales) that I was having trouble correlating the two.  I guess I felt I needed to confirm that further!

13 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Trying to integrate/correlate the old FE settings and new FE2 settings may be a waste of time. They could be using two different methodologies and are therefore just two different things. I'm sold on FE2, especially after EL NINO77s comments on separation effects. Assuming one is going to use Iron Bias, is there any reason at all to use the old original version?

(Rereading El Nino77's excellent study, I likely will just be confirming what he found regarding crown cap identification.  I don't have a nail board so no retesting that part.)

Good points and good question.  I think I'll play a little bit in the backyard teststand.  Maybe I can get even more confused (but hopefully not drag you along with me).  I'll just use crown cap(s) since those seem to be among the most impacted, and in general most common/prevalent targets.

[Cal_Cobra 1,170]

I run FE2/0 as unmasking is my primary goal. 

Interestingly large iron tools (axe heads, chisels, large spikes, etc) TID at a solid 13, right at nickle.  I know this will sound odd, but a nickle that TIDs @ 13 sounds different, more tinkley vs iron tools which have a flat/dull sound. 

I still dig them because (1) I want to remove them and who knows maybe you'll find a gun part or something interesting, and (2) it's a 13 and I'm typically hunting old sites, so it could, in theory, be a gold coin or something else interesting.

[Smithobx 68]

One of the most informative threads I’ve seen. Thanks to Steve. 

[JohnnyRox 78]

Is there no one on here that has a hook at Minelab and could maybe get someone there to do a video or come on here and give us the lowdown on this?  

[Steve Herschbach 29,401]

I should not laugh but the thought of Minelab responding directly to information requests and explanations, not to mention requests for accessory coils, seems to be a fantasy many of us have these days. Ever since the new marketing crew in Chicago took over a couple years ago, the engineering videos and Treasure Talk blogs all came to a halt. There was a email survey Minelab sent out this spring asking people what kind of information and videos people want to see, but so far nothing has come of it.