Jump to content

Physical Logic Behind Frequency Interrogation Methods?


Recommended Posts

Greetings fellow detectorists, I'm hoping someone with a deeper understanding of the technological methods of the Equinox series might be able to shed some light on why certain Interrogation methods work they do. I think we are all aware of the little trick whereby a potential target in the mid conductor range in multi frequency can be examined in 10hz; a sudden jump from the teens to the twenties indicates a likely bottle cap. My questions are two fold; first, what is responsible for this phenomenon? Why does a change in frequency potentially change the vdi of a target, and what determines when a change occurs?  Second, is there a potential logic here that one can use to devise further Interrogation methods using similar principles? Looking forward to your insights!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Shinto --

Briefly, different "classes" of targets (low conductor, mid conductor, etc.) respond/react differently to different frequencies.  Essentially, as the transmitted electromagnetic energy emanating from the detector's coil encounters a metal target, the transmitted electrical field moving across the target as you sweep the coil induces electrical currents in (actually on the surface of, for the most part) the metal objects.  And the characteristics of the induced electrical currents are then "received" by the coil, and analyzed by the machine. 

One of the things that affects the characteristics of the electrical "eddy" currents induced in a given target (in addition to the target's shape, size, depth, and metallic composition, etc.) is what frequency of electromagnetic energy (as transmitted by the coil) the target is exposed to.  Certain metal objects are more "resonant" to certain frequencies than others, and so by changing your transmit frequency, you are changing the character of the electrical currents that are induced in the target, by the transmitted energy. 

As the electrical field induced in the target is received by, and then analyzed by, the algorithms in the detector, these observed, induced electrical field differences (as related to changes in the transmit frequency) manifest as changes in the machine's reported VDI.  

While there are "clues" which can be gleaned from these differences -- i.e. how a given target responds to different frequencies, it takes alot of experimentation (switching between the various frequencies, and observing resulting responses of many targets over time) to begin to glean any meaningful/helpful information.  And, of course, there's still a certain amount of "subjectiveness" there, due to how many different types and orientations of targets exist in the ground.  

Gleaning these details, is what a good detector algorithm tries to do FOR you.  This is what detector designers try to incorporate into their VDI algorithms, of course.  That's not at all to say that there are not things you can glean from the information at hand, that can enhance or even "outdo" the detector algorithms; of course, that's what we are ALL trying to do.

Anyway, hopefully that helps to partially address some of your questions.

Steve

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

Ah!

Well stated Steve.

We have a few algorithms in our brains too.

Mitchel

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice explanation, Steve, both the theoretical and the practical views.  Mitchel made a good point which I expound upon.  Even the most sophisticated detetors today don't take advantage of all the information at hand, leaving our brains to do some of the 'heavy lifting', too.  With time as more powerful processing (hardware, maybe, but software for sure) gets implemented it's likely the disparity between the best, most experienced detectorists and the less experienced ones diminishes.  As to how much or when, we need an even better crystal ball than is currently used in the months leading up to a new detector release.  😏

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic discussion folks, and many thanks for the explanations given as they fit well into my own understanding. While there are obviously many gray areas in target interrogation methods and results will be highly dependent on target composition, depth, environmental context, etc, I would be interested to hear what other phenomenon folks have noticed and whether they've been able to turn them into general rules. The 10hz check would be one example, or pumping a coil to detect for iron tones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are hunting in  multi iq and you get a hit in the nickel range and then  switch to 5kz. and get a coin  hit beware.The shallow  sounding high hit is  probably a bottle cap but if its a   weak sounding high  hit it could be a deep nickel or gold ring.You have to consider up  averaging in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ShintoSunrise said:

Hey all, while researching this question myself I came across a technical write-up from Minelab I hadn't seen before; sharing here in case others found it interesting! https://www.minelab.com/__files/f/11043/KBA_METAL_DETECTOR_BASICS_&_THEORY.pdf

Yeah, that's a pretty well known and informative article to those who've deep dived this site.  That document was also linked in the "more to be found here" post and thread that Steve provided above.  Specifically, it is included in Steve's Metal Detecting and Prospecting Library.  There are other similarly informative artcles on detecting principles and theory there as well.  Steve basically makes it easy by consolidating the information and links on his site so you don't have to go down the Google rabbit hole as much.  That's why if Steve responds to a question of mine with a link, I usually dig into it like I would if I just got a coin spill signal on my detector.  It is usually worth the click.  :smile:

  • 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 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...