Jump to content

New Concept In Metal Detectors? (warning: Facetious Post)

Recommended Posts

Here's a piece of an ad that showed up on my browser page while reading the forum.  I sometimes miss figuring things out but this one (on the surface) seems too far out there to have me fooled, but I never really know.  The one on the left is particularly bizarre.  Maybe just kids toys that don't actually work but make them think they are detecting?  (I could have clicked the ad and gone to the site but I'm always concerned that this will lead to me being targeted by more of their ads.)


  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One on the left looks like it will work on carpets. Is the one on the right compatible with swiffer pads and cleaner bottles? LOL

On a practical sense the left one seems heavy at the bottom and probably tough to swing.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't resist -- I had to click on the ad and find out what was going on.  I only got as far as investigating the product on the left, and am still not sure how it works.  But it was in the Salvador Dali section of the website so that might be a hint....

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be fun to get one of those and put some high end detector parts inside and make a sleeper for a seeded hunt 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, I recently had an example of the model on the left, I found it dumped near a recycling paper/bottle-bank site. So for fun, I brought it home to perform a strip-down.

99% of it went in the bin, the most useful part was the PP3 9 volt battery connector. The bizarre bit was the LCD display. It did nothing of note, and clearly its sole purpose was 'hood ornament'. Yet there was way more tech in this LCD than the rest of the machine, it had some multi-segment 'pie-chart' appearance, that cycled round when (presumably) metal was under the coil. There were two cob ( chip on board) integrated circuits to drive the LCD, yet the rest of the detector had just 5 transistors total.
It's quite bizarre that the designers have gone to so much trouble creating this useless contraption, when they could've actually made something that genuinely worked, in a simple way.

  • Like 2
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 Steve Herschbach
      The whole depth with single frequency VLF detectors thing in my opinion has been nothing but a red herring for decades. I have read a thousand posts from people wanting VLF detectors with "more depth". Yet VLF detectors maxed out for usable depth by at least 1990 if not before. I have not used any single frequency VLF metal detector since 1990 that got more depth on coins than my old Compass Gold Scanner Pro.

      The only real improvement we have seen and are still seeing is in the ability to find and correctly identify items that are masked by the ground itself or adjacent undesirable targets. There are an amazing number of targets in the ground at depths achievable by any decent detector made in the last 25 years, but that are being missed because they are improperly identified and ignored, or just completely masked and invisible. This is an area where the Minelab BBS and FBS detectors have excelled. They do not go deeper. They simply get more accurate discrimination at depths exceeding what most detectors achieve. Machines like the DEUS and a lot of other Euro machines are excelling not for the depth they get, but this ability to acquire and accurately identify targets at shallower depths that are missed by other detectors.

      If we had a detector that could simply see through everything and accurately identify coins to 10" the ground would light up with countless missed finds. I get a chuckle out of all the deep coins I see people talk about on the forums when the best detectors made can't accurately identify a dime past 5-6 inches in my soil. Anything deeper just gets called ferrous. There is huge room for improvement in metal detectors still not by getting more depth, but by simply finding shallower targets that have been missed by other detectors made up until now.
      How To Make Yourself Crazy!
      U.S. Versus Euro Style Detectors
    • By Tony
      From what I can gather, higher frequency VLF detectors are more suited for smaller gold but ground mineralisation may be something to factor in. Would there be a “better” frequency for nuggets 1 gram and above in heavy ground?
      I’m not too concerned if I miss sub gram nuggets if there is a better suited frequency.
      The old Garrett Groundhog circuitry was legendary in this country…..I think it was around the 15 kHz mark. Is this frequency range a good starting point or do I need to consider other things such as better ground balancing capabilities or Garrett’s extra coil voltage. 
      My Minelab PI units will be mainstay detectors but as mentioned in another post, I have ground littered in man made iron junk and the ground mineralisation is severe. There are plenty of nuggets in the 1 gram to 5 gram range (maybe bigger) but the iron signals are as dense as 5 per square metre 🤬
       Thanks for any ideas.
    • By water spider
      maybe we could have a multi frequency coil, that recieves a single frequency or selectable single frequency and effectively distorts and amplifies the single frequency resulting in frequency variants up and down, mimicking or creating smf
    • By Skullgolddiver
      After the good new I realized when tested a few days ago my machine after It drowned and I've succesfully reanimated It....
      Now the horrible gasket Is fighting to stay out of the housing against any kind of attempt😒.
      So I'm in the middle of a headache manutention session with scarce results.
      That's the Mood guys😑

    • By Tnsharpshooter
      See NASA-Tom’s comments
    • By Tnsharpshooter
      Don’t know any other better subforum to place this.
      When manufacturers design make sure platform can allow at least 2 software versions or at the very least allow what I call both newer version update (whole) and a older subset (portion of older version) to be used.  
      Makes testing easier if and when a newer version is designed and requires pre release testing in the field for validation.   Would allow users after version release to use different versions and gain first hand feedback of the benefits or lack thereof of different versions or version subset(s).  Case in point.  Notice Minelab left old iron bias to be user selected when they released newer version with iron bias F2 option.  
      So in a nutshell this allows the detector versions ( or version subset) to be compared to the themselves in the field by the user.
      Xp should have done this too.  They should have designed Deus imo where at least  2 complete version allowed to be uploaded to unit.
      Notice the later released Ace Apex.  Garrett should have allowed on it too.  
      Don’t know what added production cost this would cause.  Hopefully not much.
  • Create New...