Jump to content

Recommended Posts


Interesting, do you believe depth with VLF`s is frequency dependant ie  lower frequency = more depth and less sensitivity, higher frequency = less depth more sensitivity. Sensitivity being to smaller targets. I am finding with the Deus and its switchable frequencies the above is very true especially for coin sized targets. ( The Deus being my first switchable frequency detector since the 1700, thus please forgive me for not mentioning the others) Or is this lower frequency thing just because it isn`t targeting the smaller stuff it just appears to have more depth?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frequency does a number of things. George Payne was one of the engineers who patented many of the basic concepts used in VLF detectors to this day. Here is an excerpt from his article at http://jb-ms.com/Baron/payne.htm (2002):
 
"The r component acts differently. It is maximum at one particular frequency and decreases if you go up or down in frequency. We call the special frequency at which the r signal is maximum, the target’s “-3db” frequency. It also turns out that at the -3db frequency the x signal is one-half of its maximum value. This special frequency is unique to each target and is different for different target.

The higher the conductivity of the target the higher will be the targets -3db frequency. Conversely, the lower the conductivity the lower the -3db frequency. The -3db frequency of the high conductivity target will also make the r signal peak at a high frequency, normally well above the operating frequency of the VLF detector. This will make the high conductivity target have lower sensitivity on the VLF detector because the r signal amplitude drops if we are significantly below the -3db frequency. Simply put, maximum sensitivity on a VLF detector would be if we position the operating frequency directly at the target’s -3db frequency. For example, a dime and penny have a -3db frequency of about 2.7KHz. This is where their r signal peaks and would be the best frequency for picking them up using a VLF detector. However, a silver dollar has a -3db frequency of 800Hz. Nickels, on the other hand, have a -3db frequency, where its r peaks, at about 17KHz. Targets like thin rings and fine gold are higher still. Clearly there is no one frequency that is best for all these targets. The best you can do is have an operating frequency that is a compromise."

So that sets up the basics for air tests. The problem is we have to deal with the ground. Lower frequencies tend to be better at reducing ground issues, while higher frequencies light up both the ground and hot rocks lower frequencies might ignore. You are looking for a frequency which best lights up a target while minimizing ground effects. All in all mid frequency machines in the 10-20 kHz range offer good compromise solutions, above 20 tends to be the realm of specialized prospecting detectors, and under ten the realm of the "coin detector".

Minelab messes with peoples heads because their multifrequency FBS detectors are billed as operating at 1.5 kHz all the way up to 100 khz simultaneously. Sounds like they should simply do it all, right? Super deep on coins, super hot on tiny gold. Yet this really is not the case in practice. What they do is get very accurate discrimination on coin type targets at very good depths, but compared to single frequency prospecting machines they are no depth demons. I have seen all kinds of technical arguments and explanations surrounding this which all completely ignore practical reality. Reality is these machines were designed first and foremost to deliver exceptional accuracy for coin hunters looking for silver coins in park settings, and they excel at this task. Accurate discrimination as far as it can be pushed. They despite all the marketing fluff act like really good low to moderate frequency detectors. Possibly the best silver hunters made. Focus on what they do, not what they are marketed as.

These days EMI can be a big issue, and certain frequencies that in theory may work well may not in practice due to interference issues. The Fisher F75 looked great on paper but at 13 kHz fought EMI issues forever. Machines running at 19 khz seem nearly immune to urban EMI and so have an edge in that regard.

Finally, frequency is just a small part of it all these days. The efficiency of the ground balance method, voltage applied to the coil (transmit gain) and receiver gain, recovery speed (reactivity) etc all play into it, so frequency alone is only a bare indicator of basic operating parameters. Still useful though and operating frequency is certainly something I still always look at when choosing metal detectors. Units like the White's V3i or XP DEUS are fascinating to experiment with because you can switch frequencies on the fly and observe the effect on found targets.

One thing you will discover air testing a DEUS is that in air tests depths do not change all that much with the frequency on silver coins, but increase dramatically on low conductors like U.S. nickels or gold rings as frequency increases. Remember that aluminum is a low conductor, so using low frequencies in a park setting will do well on most coins while reducing signals on common trash.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the basic depth problem with VLF detectors.

Metal detectors have a basic limitation in how far they can detect gold items. From http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/200TrCcts/MetalDetectors/MetalDetectors-1.html  “the sensitivity is roughly proportional to the cube of the object diameter (as expressed as a function of the search coil diameter). Sensitivity is also inversely proportional to the sixth power of the distance between the coil and the object. All this means is that if the object size is halved the sensitivity is reduced to one-eighth. Also, if the depth is doubled the sensitivity is reduced to one sixty-fourth. It’s easy to see why all metal detectors which are designed to pick up small objects use small coils, (150 to 300 mm diameter) and really only skim the soil surface. If the search coil is doubled in diameter for greater penetration the sensitivity to small objects falls to one-eighth. You rapidly encounter the law of diminishing returns.”

Famed metal detector engineer Dave Johnson reiterates this in a different way at http://www.fisherlab.com/hobby/davejohnson/davejohnsonjohngardinerinterview.htm  “Getting extra depth out of a VLF, multifrequency, or PI machine is very difficult, because these machines follow an inverse 6th power law relationship between signal voltage and depth. If everything else is maintained equal, doubling the depth requires 64 times as much signal. If this is done by increasing transmitter power, doubling depth requires 4,096 times as much battery drain. That’s the basic reason why depth increases come so slowly in this industry.”

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that`s in Depth. No pun intended. Never bothered with air depth tests, only air test for IDs, which is not 100% either. In ground undug targets can only give a true indication. There on the Deus as I guess with all changeable frequency detectors a indication of the frequency change can make to detection of a target, have noticed a difference that confirms the lower frequency depth capabilities as at a higher frequency the sensitivity to small nuggets. More so on small gold, not a peep at 4Khz but a clear signal at 19Khz.

 

Certainly from coin sites had flogged with the A2B, back in 80s to going over those sites with the Deus now, VLFs haven`t gone far, even the discrimination features seem of not much value on such sites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and not all places have coins at depth. Most forums I read make a great deal of various "sink rates" regarding coins, and that no doubt holds true in moist climates with deep turf accumulations. But a lot of places with drier climates the ground surface changes but little over time and coins stay shallow even over hundreds of years. The first people in with detectors quickly got the bulk of them, no different than many nugget patches. Unfortunately, more depth, even when we can get it, just does not result in more finds. A lot of places got cleaned out of the really good stuff back in the late 60's and early 70's before we got this huge proliferation of aluminum trash. Parks really were just a lot cleaner and even the simple BFO and TR detectors of the day had no problem pulling out what would now be huge numbers of old coins.

I used to subscribe to all sorts of treasure magazines back in the 70's before I ever got into nugget detecting. The magazine covers had pictures like this one of Kay Modgling on a regular basis - people finding silver by the sackful and rings by the pound. With basic non-discriminating non-ground balancing detectors! Kay was just amazing. And it may be that the very lack of discrimination played a big part in it. When I got started there was no such thing, you just dug it all. No worries about target masking!

kay-modgling.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kay was apparently one of the early stars of detecting. Pals with folks like the legendary (and happily still,with us) Jim Straight.

They Had the pick of the 19th and early 20th century deposits.

The Europeans have been waking slowly up to this for the last decades and are now on board, with their own detector manufacturers following.

Guess where the next great historical rush will be.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China

1500 BC!

Guess who will sell 10 million high quality metal detectors there?

SOMEBODY will - and if Apple's success in China is any guide, it might not be a low ball outfit - whether Chinese or otherwise.

The last big prize for detector sellers - who will win?

P.S. Forgot India, add 20 million more!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My first detector was a Garret deepseeker vlf/tr. No vlf I have had since then went deeper. using reverse discrimination it was 100% accurate according to the discrimination setting. Of course thing got easier with the next model but the finds got leaner...

 

Steve; excellent primer or refresher on VLF's in the current ICMJ...

 

fred

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Guess who will sell 10 million high quality metal detectors there?

SOMEBODY will - and if Apple's success in China is any guide, it might not be a low ball outfit - whether Chinese or otherwise.

The last big prize for detector sellers - who will win?"

 

funny, i was talking to my wife a couple of days ago about an idea i had of having our friend with all the mountain property inviting a group of hunters over to China to do some detecting on his property and having another friend who manages a cctv station in Shanghai film the whole operation for Chinese TV. Putting together something that sounded like a fun adventure and getting some publicity for jade mountain and the old temples and such that are on the mountain land, I didn't really think about the possibility of generating interest in metal detecting "IN" China, i just kind of assumed they already were? 

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 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?
    • By ColonelDan
      99% of my detecting is done on central Florida beaches. Since it’s impossible to establish a well stocked test garden at a public beach, I sorta brought the beach home with me and developed my own private beach garden!
       
      I cut slots in two large empty chlorine tablet buckets at various depths as shown from 2 -16 inches. I then filled one with New Smyrna Beach sand and the other with soil...for the few times I land hunt around here.

       
      I embedded numerous examples of ferrous and non ferrous targets into paint stirring sticks. I also have several blank sticks I use for gold and silver jewelry as well as artifacts that I don’t want permanently attached to a stick.

       
      I then insert the target(s) in the slots, each at its desired depth, and start scanning.
       

      This allows me to rapidly change the targets, depth and relative position of each.  I can now test for sensitivity at depth as well as separation of ferrous and non-ferrous targets in a variety of scenarios using actual beach sand where I do my detecting.
       
      If I want to test in wet salt sand, I just soak the bucket sand with authentic sea water that I also brought home from New Smyrna Beach...and the Atlantic Ocean never even missed it.  😉
       
      Works for me.....
    • By Steve Herschbach
      I always have my ears perked up for something new in metal detectors and metal detecting technology. I’m not educated enough to really get deep into the technical side of it, but I have a general layman's knowledge of the subject.

      A couple years ago Carl Moreland, the Engineering Manager for White's Electronics, was interviewed on a radio show. I tripped over a reference to the interview on another forum and checked it out. It is very long, and near the end Carl dropped a bombshell. At least I thought so, but it went unnoticed and uncommented on in the metal detecting online world. I thought about posting it on a forum back then but decided to wait and see what developed. Here is the applicable portion of the interview:

      Relic Roundup Radio Show, January 17, 2012, Interview with Carl Moreland, Engineering Manager, White’s Electronics
      http://en.1000mikes.com/app/archiveEntry.xhtml?archiveEntryId=260469

      Transcript beginning at 50:57 mark:

      Carl Moreland - “I can mention one technology that we’re working on because the patent has already been published… or the application, not the patent hasn't gone through yet. We’re working on something called half sine technology, which has actually been around since the 1960’s in geophysical prospecting applications. This is where instead of transmitting a sinusoidal signal you actually just transmit half of the sine and you can do that at extremely high voltages and high ? rates and so on. It’s technically not pulse induction but it’s not VLF either and it is a time domain method. And with that we can get really good depth and we can even get target id information and do discrimination and so forth.”

      Can you see why I perked up at that? I am still amazed it did not get any notice at the time. Nothing happened for a long time. Then I got this PM from Rick Kempf recently:

      Sent 29 January 2014 - 09:04 AM

      Was looking for info on my new SD 2100 this AM when I sort of fell down a rabbit hole of old forum posts and emerged reading Whites new patent. About the first thing I noticed was that you were cited in "prior art".

      Here's what they cited: http://www.voy.com/76600/7/475.html

      The patent is here: http://www.google.com/patents/US20110316541

      Is this something you knew about? Just wondering.

      Rick Kempf

      I told Rick, yeah, heard about that. It was the patent finally being granted from the application Carl mentions in the interview. It was fun getting a mention in a patent though I think it was just the examiner studying up on the subject and finding my old post helpful in simplifying the subject.

      For a long time the Holy Grail in metal detecting has been something that combines the target identification of an Induction Balance (IB or more commonly known as VLF) detector with depth of a Pulse Induction (PI) detector. There have been many promises and false starts over the years, and that was one reason I kept the radio interview mention quiet the last couple years. Frankly, I had half forgot about it until Rick brought the patent being granted to my attention. Notice the title:

      Hybrid Induction Balance/Pulse Induction Metal Detector

      A new hybrid metal detector combines induction balance and pulse induction technologies. Target signals are generated from a transmitted wave that has both induction balance and pulse current inducing characteristics and uses pertinent sampling of the receive data. Combining the two data sources provides eddy current target identification while excluding ground permeability and remanence obscuration.

      Is it time to sing Hallelujah? Well, there is a big gap in between getting a patent and bringing a detector to market. Many patents get filed and you never even see something directly related to the patent. Maybe it looked good on paper but does not pan out well in reality for numerous reasons. So just because White's was granted this patent does not mean something is around the corner. However, they have been working on it for over two years already obviously. And it has been some time since White's put something new out. I do not count remakes of the MXT etc as new. So I think there is reason to be hopeful we may see something one of these days.

      John Earle is one of the unsung heros in the industry. He had a hand in many of the best products at Compass Electronics before moving over to White's after Compass went under. To this day I have never used a VLF that goes any deeper than my old Compass Gold Scanner Pro. John was one of the brains involved in that, as well as the White's Goldmaster 3, regarded by many as being the pinnacle of the analog development of that model line. I was fortunate to have met John at the factory some years ago. He is listed as the inventor on the new patent. Half sine technology is also mentioned in an earlier patent filed by White's, again with John listed as inventor at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7649356.pdf

      Looks like serious stuff brewing. Bruce Candy of Minelab makes mention of half sine technology in a patent application at http://patents.com/us-20130154649.html which makes me wonder about the new "Super Gold Detector" he is working on. But it is this most recent patent by White's that seems to put the finest point on it. Maybe the Holy Grail of detecting is soon to be a reality. The fact it is White's certainly gives me more hope than what we have seen in the past.
      Edit May 2015 - see also White's patent for Constant Current Metal Detector
    • By kac
      Found this patent that Whites filed and got a patent on in 2014 on a hybrid IB/PI machine.
      https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110316541A1/en
      Curious if anyone heard anything about this. Maybe Garrett will take it on?
    • By NV-OR-ID-CAL-AU
      I know we have had some great advancements in VLF metal detector's over the recent past, but I am hoping that we can keep some of the older design features that seemed to work well. 
      My favorite new technological features being offered in VLF's are Multi-IQ and single frequencies options, fully programmable settings, waterproof, noise cancel, USB chargers, li-ion batteries, Bluetooth headphones, prospecting & coin/relic options, and lightweight. Really a great job by the inventors of these detectors.
      IMHO I hope we do not lose some of the past designs that worked well, such as the ergonomics of the balanced s rod that would separate in three places for backpacking, the hip mountable brain box, the detectors that would not fall over when put on a little bit of an uneven surface, the 6.5 inch elliptical concentric or double DD coils for great access in rocky areas, the 1/4 inch headphone jack, the spare interchangeable battery pack that takes regular batteries to serve as a back-up for the li-ion battery pack, and higher frequencies options.
      I would like to see what else had worked well with other detector user, seems like we are always buying aftermarket parts to retain some of these older features where possible. 
    • By schoolofhardNox
      Not sure where this belongs on the forum, (or if it even belongs here), but this seemed to be the best category to discuss this. Ever since information on the GPX 6000 started to trickle out, I had this nagging feeling something in detecting has changed for those of us who like the thrill of getting to know a new detector. I never would have envisioned the GPX line morphing into a simplified detector. After having the GPX 5000 for a bunch of years now, and using it for relic and beach hunting, I could not imagine relying on a machine that adjust everything for you. I get it that money talks, and when you are a publicly traded company, you go for profit first, and then deny it 😄 And now that there market has switched to an area that probably has very little experience with detectors, the GPX 5000 must have been daunting for them.  So they cater to that market. But I was hoping that a new GPX would fix some of the issues that the 5000 had. I was naive. Minelab has never kept the good parts of their previous machines and just added the the things that needed improvements. On the E trac, the best part of it was the depth it had in finding deep silver,  in long tones, multi. Also the bouncy numbers helped ID deep Indians. When the CTX came out, it lost some of that fluety tone and they tried to straighten out the numbers to a number 12 line. So a two dimensional screen that worked well was transformed into a 2 dimensional screen that bunched most targets on one line. The The EQ comes out and squashes out the numbers even further. So why I thought the 6000 would not do the same is beyond me. I guess I'm disappointing that the "trend" is to make machines where the manufacturer decides on how your machine is going to be set. I hope someone in my area gets a 6000 and is willing to bring it to the beach to compare settings on deep silver. If it wins, then I will eat my words. I know I will get some slack with people saying it's a gold machine, not a relic or beach machine, but to them I would say.... you should be worried when a company controls your ability to fine tune your machine. Thoughts?
×
×
  • Create New...