Jump to content

Monte's Nail Board Test Questions


Recommended Posts

As long as one test setup is used and is identical for all detectors a person is testing, then it really does not matter. It is only when people are trading results that consistency is so important. And frankly you’ll not see much of that from what I have observed on the net.

I in fact promise my normal nail test board is not standard. It’s about four feet by four feet, and has an assortment of ferrous stuff plus hot rocks with multiple target setups. Custom made as needed. Montes test is too limited for me, as nails are not really my problem anyway. It’s all the stuff that creates false signals, like flat steel, any hardened steel, washers, etc. plus hot rocks. The only nails that trouble me in the wild tend to be broken square nails or bent nails. Separation matters but I am also testing for a propensity to accurately identify ferrous objects that create false non-ferrous readings. Nobody seems to test for that, but it is a rare detector that will accurately identify a simple round lid from an old steel can. It's not always the detector with the best separation, that's for sure.

A Steve Test Board....

hot-rocks-and-ferrous-trash-test-bed.jpg

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


24 minutes ago, abenson said:

Like I found out it's only standardized if you have an actual board Monte builds which you can purchase from him.

That seems overly restrictive in today's world.  I realize that (confirmed by Monte) your test setup was a bit smaller scalewise than intended.  Does that mean only those made by Monte match scale, though?  When he chimes in here (which I'm confident he will) I'm going to ask him to provide actual measurements that will allow us who print off page 4 of his monograph to make sure ours are to scale.

As far as repeatability from one place to another (let alone one operator to another), even Monte in his monograph brings up the differences in ground mineralization.  If I correctly interpret what he says in that document, he prefers it be placed on the ground.  Presumably he is trying to get the test as close to real life (specifically to duplicate the objects, orientations, locations,... of the original discovery test setup).

I think the point thats been made by several now -- that this is just one test whose interpretation alone shouldn't make or break a detector's worthiness -- is the most important thing to be respected.  Of course that's also the case of every YouTube video, regardless of the presenter, the location, the detectors used, and on and on.  Expand that to *every* report made anywhere in print or made public (including the WWW).

Metal detecting seems to have few standards, and that adds to the murkiness of the evaluation of detectors.  As limited as the Monte Nail Board Test is, it does at least offer insights into some performance characteristics, and for a given user/tester, lead to a choice when parallel conditions are presented in the field.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just ask for informed objectiveness when people are posting comparison or performance videos.  Since there are so, so many variables at play, those videos simply serve as gross data points for me for setting expectations for real world demonstrations of a detector's capabilities in the field.  In other words, getting too wrapped up in the precision of these otherwise gross tests is just spinning wheels because in the grand scheme, the length or orientation of the nail or composition of the test target is easily overshadowed by all the other real world variables, it is not really worth losing sleep over.  Also, I think it is becoming pretty obvious we are so high up on the state of the technology curve for IB VLF detectors (a very gross measuring instrument in the first place) that the ultimate performance overall difference in detectors released in the last few years is really almost razor thin.  What matters more, from a value perspective these days is detector versatility.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2020 at 7:24 PM, Steve Herschbach said:

A Steve Test Board....

Wow that looks like my back yard - the dirt!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly not as elaborate as Steve's but I planted a 3D version of Monte's Nail Board with dug square nails @ 1-4" around a Cu penny @ 6". It's a tough target, but not unrealistic for some of my sites. It has really helped me to see the need to slow way down and massage each hit, It has also shown what each size coil can do and how different frequencies react with the ferrous and non ferrous. Without this 3D set up I would have just gone with the conventional wisdom that a higher frequency is better in iron, Now I know how 20kHz compares with 14kHz and 5kHz. High gain vs. moderate gain, I was surprised  by the clarity 5 kHz gives the tones, but you have to go slow and keep good overlap on any frequency. Now I know another way to help unlock a keeper out of the iron. 5 is not as quick as 20 but it adds it's own attributes if you let it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I seem to remember folks also scoring detectors on this test or making references to X detector is a 6 on Montes nail board test. Can someone explain or point me to an explanation of this?  

Is there a sequence of sweeps? Does each direction count as a point if it reads picks up the penny? What if it picks up one way? What if one detector scores the same points but in a different combination of positive results?  Is it out of 8 or 16 or other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2020 at 4:24 PM, Steve Herschbach said:

As long as one test setup is used and is identical for all detectors a person is testing, then it really does not matter. It is only when people are trading results that consistency is so important. And frankly you’ll not see much of that from what I have observed on the net.

I in fact promise my normal nail test board is not standard. It’s about four feet by four feet, and has an assortment of ferrous stuff plus hot rocks with multiple target setups. Custom made as needed. Montes test is too limited for me, as nails are not really my problem anyway. It’s all the stuff that creates false signals, like flat steel, any hardened steel, washers, etc. plus hot rocks. The only nails that trouble me in the wild tend to be broken square nails or bent nails. Separation matters but I am also testing for a propensity to accurately identify ferrous objects that create false non-ferrous readings. Nobody seems to test for that, but it is a rare detector that will accurately identify a simple round lid from an old steel can. It's not always the detector with the best separation, that's for sure.

A Steve Test Board....

hot-rocks-and-ferrous-trash-test-bed.jpg

 The right section personifies my hunting conditions except it would need to be in the 3rd dimension as well. After 4 years of not finding a silver coin in the yard I have found 2 in the last week. I attribute this to going extremely slow.
I recovered a burned silver dime 4 days ago running a 6x8 coil on the v3i running a span of 50 in 3 frequency, half a dozen nails in the hole and dime is bubbled and curled like a potato chip. We need 3rd dimensional mapping and harmonic decay sampling😁

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nickeldNdimed said:

I seem to remember folks also scoring detectors on this test or making references to X detector is a 6 on Montes nail board test. Can someone explain or point me to an explanation of this?  

Is there a sequence of sweeps? Does each direction count as a point if it reads picks up the penny? What if it picks up one way? What if one detector scores the same points but in a different combination of positive results?  Is it out of 8 or 16 or other?

You have 4 directions / No. 1-2-3-4 / sweeping the spool and 2 coin positions, which is a total of 8 points ...

If any detector passes this test in each direction - with "double-sided" sweeping of the coil, this detector will deliver a full 8 points ....

however, there are situations when the tested detector in some direction of sweeping knows the data signal on the coin only from one side of sweeping ... and therefore for this direction of sweeping I count only 1/2 point ...

It's important ... because some detectors can only give one-sided signal-1/2 points even in different positions ... and so counting several such results can fairly appreciate the separation properties of a certain detector in this test ...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nickeldNdimed said:

I seem to remember folks also scoring detectors on this test or making references to X detector is a 6 on Montes nail board test. Can someone explain or point me to an explanation of this?  

Is there a sequence of sweeps? Does each direction count as a point if it reads picks up the penny? What if it picks up one way? What if one detector scores the same points but in a different combination of positive results?  Is it out of 8 or 16 or other?

I've seen people score it 2 different ways. But first off you have to have a nail board from Monte himself if you want every test to be consistent from video/written report. Some people say it's not valid because the nails are new. But that's not the point. Consistency from user to user is the point, and granted the results can vary depending on coil height above the board. But the official way to test is complete swings across the arrows in each direction with the coil approximately 1-2" above the board.

So as far as scoring it goes. You can have a possible 8/8 score meaning it hits the coin in both directions or you can do a 16/16 and count one way hits.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. So already 3 different scoring methods/scales in just 2 responses. 

I agree it is not a good global test but maybe a good local test. Maybe that is a good way to describe it. And the scoring scale and nails or board used, or technique of the user don’t matter as much as long as they are the same for the group of detectors being compared and those variables are stated or defined. 

Anyway.  I’m wanting to do some detector comparison for fun and to scratch the winter detecting itch so wanting to figure out my method and could not find anything definitive on the scoring.  Thanks!

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...