Jump to content

Masked Objects Tid's


Recommended Posts


What an interesting test! I don’t recall seeing something exactly like this, where what you are testing is the amount of target id skewing that might occur. It’s always devastating to see this illustrated, as it shows that for other than clean targets, the id numbers can be all over the map. Which in turn means that short of digging everything, you are going to leave good stuff behind using any discrimination at all.

The AT Pro did quite well. 👍🏻

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

    Cool test kac! I always appreciate the effort, when you all set up testing scenarios like this one, and post the results!

Thanks!!👍👍

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I don't use any of those detectors I liked how well you sowed the test and results.

This gives me more knowledge down the road should I ever get one of those units.

Knowledge is the only way someone can learn the tricks of their unit to become better at this hobby.

Thank you.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice test , curious to see what would would have been the results of the deus or orx , which are really excellent in iron trash masking conditions  ... I do not know either the kruzer , gold kruzer or at pro btw ... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This wasn't supposed to be machine specific as it was to show the spectrum of frequencies with the machines I had that have a VDI. Oddly recovery speed seems less relevant when a masking object is directly over a target. Makes sense as you don't need the machine to separate 2 objects but rather see through it. My guess is that is why the AT Pro was able to produce consistent numbers even though those numbers were in the iron/junk range often they would produce a higher tone other than a grunt. If the AT Pro had a mineralization meter it would be much better.

So with that being said the Deus and Orx might do better in those conditions if you lowered the reactivity rather than the other way around.

I had been wanting to do this test for a while because some argue machines up average and I had seen in many cases the opposite and it boils down to what minerals are in the ground and what the target is below so in that case it goes either way.

The hardest hunting seems to be with coal and coke because not only does it trigger the machines in the iron range but will spike them well above, bog iron, iron halos and even magnetite seem to be easier to negotiate.

What ever machine you use if it has a mineral meter keep a good eye on that and the size of the sound of the target you hear.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kac said:

some argue machines up average

Isolated aluminum targets like a rolled up beavertail up average to the dime range in my ground with most any single frequency detector. Equinox does not nor did CTX. Adding a multifrequency unit to your test mix might be interesting.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy enough test for anyone to do even if you just scrape the iron oxide off an old horse shoe or break up some coal and put it in a baggie. Think I forgot to mention I kept the coil 2" above the mask so my total depth to target was 7" approx. The magnetite I got was from my water hunting in local swim hole. I had a hard drive magnet stuck to the bottom of my scoop and end of the day it would look like a chia pet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kac ....  you did a very educative test on three different detection situations ... Thanks..:wink:

If you specify the exact weight of rust, magnetite, and coal..and also the test conditions, then this test could be very easily standardized.

And I was glad .. if you could standardize this test ..👍

Now to the test ...

   1. Test - Masking with iron, rust .. or Hematite .. can strongly reduce the ID of a non-ferrous object and from the lower level of the ID limit .... at the lower limit of discrimination between iron and non-ferrous metals ...
  In this case, the high frequency can strongly help in such a detection situation ...
 
 2. Test -Strongly mineralized mineralized in this case strongly increases the ID of the object ... and where medium and highly conductive objects in the small depths of the sea to pass into the iron zone ... it also applies to small less deep objects .. which you at VLF detectors will be displayed, for example, under the high ID 97-99 at the upper limit ... Non-iron zone, alo even go to the iron zone ..
 
  Some detectors are better built on such detection conditions .. and allow stable detection ... even if * the object ID will still be very high ..


3. ..Test ..Terain containing coke, coal, but also simulate saline strongly conductive detection field, where we can count the most terrain that contains a strong proportion of salt from agricultural fertilizers .. since this terrain is partially conductive / strongly similar to very fine Aluminum foil / in this case the object ID is averaged and the "ID" terrain "is averaged.
 In this case, high frequencies are much more prone to such a reduction in ID.

On the contrary, low frequencies will be more resistant to such an ID shift ...

The fact that these tests had an increased complexity compared to normal conditions is only a plus ... because this is how they will manifest themselves in a certain way ... and less well known detection characteristics of various detectors in situations that are very demanding ...
 This allows you to get to know the detector you are working with better ..., or they will allow you to find reliable settings of the detector for such detection situations.

........................................................................................................................................................................

Etrac and 1 gram gold brick at 15cm= 6" in Black Sand.. / 4.4% Magnetite /

 

 

VID_20201205_120123_Moment.jpg

  • Like 6
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.
      https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/mining-gap-companies-push-find-raw-materials-electric-vehicle-boom-rcna5077
      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:
       and
      http://www.fisherlab.com/hobby/davejohnson/SearchcoilfieldshapeApril2012.pdf
      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...