Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly possible, but difficult. All detectors operate on a frequency, and a transmitter running at the same frequency will jam it. But there are many machines running at different frequencies, and they have ability to adjust in a range.

Option one would be a shotgun transmitter putting out a broad spectrum signal to jam all the range of frequencies detectors operate at. I can't imagine this working in the city as you would be jamming more than detectors, but maybe on a ranch in the middle of nowhere.

You could also use a frequency scanner to locate a detector in use within range, and then have the jammer work only against that frequency, so much more targets. Still no idea on the legalities, but technically it should be possible. Cost effective? I have no clue.

Simple example. Turn on a Minelab GPX 5000 in the middle of a field. Nobody will be able to get within 50 feet of that machine with another detector, as the GPX is basically throwing off it's own portable jamming field. So there is an at least 100 foot diameter circle that been effectively jammed. Expanding the concept for range is the problem though, as power requirements escalate rapidly.

Kind of related. It is possible to block cell signals. It is also illegal in many places. Police jammers, same deal. Jamming is as much a legal issue as anything, and I'd cross that bridge first, before worrying about the tech aspect.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steve Herschbach said:

Police jammers, same deal. Jamming is as much a legal issue as anything, and I'd cross that bridge first, before worrying about the tech aspect.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) here in the USA has strict controls over these kinds of things.  And some local laws even prohibit (or at least used to prohibit) scanning police frequencies (i.e. automatically searching multiple frequencies to pick up a police communication), so it's more than just transmitting that can be illegal.

How are metal detectors legal?  Because their RF range is limited due to their low power, for starters.  (Metal detector manufacturers must go through certification with the FCC before they are allowed to sell a new model of detector.  It's not just the low range that allows their use.)  Building a device capable of jamming (at a distance) is unlikely to fit under the low range allowance.  And that seems likely to be just the tip of the iceberg of laws that such a device would break.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bluetooth sweep frequency jammer might knock out their headphones if they are wireless. Not sure what kind of range they have.

Wouldn't be easier to put in some motion sensing lights and an alarm?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Concealed same cameras do wonders. Nobody should ever assume they are not being seen these days.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

?? That is some kind of easy. If it was my property I'd pepper it with scrap metal. May be there is a milling company close to you. Asking them for scrap metals made of brass, copper, iron, aluminum, etc...and what they want for, and then sow this. Will be fun to watch them...lOl 👀😜😂🤣

oops...forgot this...: Welcome aboard, WhiteRabbit.😊

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a good old fashioned stakeout?

Just remember to have eyes on the site!

 

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

I use cellular deer cameras for security. If someone tried to steal or damage them it would be too late, the photo would already be sent to me. They are easy to hide. They are relatively inexpensive and some last a long time (up to a year) on lithium AA batteries. Non-cellular cameras are less expensive. All can be bought with a steel box that makes them tougher to get to or damage.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot for the answers, some good ideas.

With regard to the law, I’m based in England so the laws will differ here. I’m a network engineer by trade, so I do know about the upper limits on signal strength and I’m also aware of which frequencies / bandwidths are public and which aren’t.

Also government licences can be granted for specific uses.

Last week a significant Roman settlement was discovered close to where I live. An article about it was published in the local newspapers and *that night* it was hit by what appears to be a team of nighthawks.

Nobody knows what they took and, since they will struggle to sell on the open market, their finds will go onto the black market. Consequently, a good chunk of British history may disappear forever.

That’s the kind of thing we are up against.

Britain currently has very permissive metal detecting laws, but if this continues, then these laws will be changed. I can foresee licensing, then a complete ban on the sale of detectors.

I have thought about scattering aluminium scrap all over the place, but you can’t do this on historic sites as it would contaminate the archaeology.

What got me thinking was hearing a friend complaining  that he thought his detector was broken before he realised he was near an electric fence that was causing interference...

Surely this could be replicated.

I did look into the designs for a home brew EMP which, believe it or not, may actually be legal to use outside cities in the UK (I’ll have to double check this!), but whatever the case, I don’t want to go wrecking peoples’ property, I just want them to know that hitting x site is going to be a waste of time.

Steve, thanks for your input. I appreciate that detectors work on different frequencies and did consider buying a few common models and amping up the signal, but that wouldn’t exactly be cheap (my CTX3030 alone is £1,700 over here). From what I have read, most detectors work in the low kHz, 1.5kHz to 40kHz and so I was wondering what decide would be required to bleed all over this frequency. It doesn’t necessarily need to block signals, just interfere with them enough to render detecting not viable. A shotgun approach might work here.

However, your idea about using a frequency scanner and locking into that is more elegant. I’m an IT engineer who does a lot of robotics / IoT work in my spare time, so I could trigger all kinds of alerts / events from this.
 

Ok, this sounds technically viable. I’ll check the laws and devices available and let you know what I discover if you’re interested?

I’d also really appreciate any further ideas.

Many thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, regarding cameras.

They are just no deterrent. People cover their faces, police are often slow to respond to such crimes and archaeologists don’t usually have the funds to finance private security. 
 

Saying that, three people were recently identified from footage taken with wildcams during the day after their mugshots were plastered all over Facebook.

  • Like 2
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 GB_Amateur
      This is a topic relevant to every(?) form of detecting -- ground coverage.  I'll list several questions concerns I've had but any replies of course aren't limited to these, nor do they need to address  any of them.  Just tossing out some ideas to prompt further discussion.
      1) What methods and efforts do you apply to ensure full ground coverage in the cases where that is one of your goals?
      2) Is your sweep a straight line path or an arc?
      3) How long is your sweep?
      4) How much do you overlap consecutive sweeps in the direction you walk?
      5) How much do you overlap side-to-side swings when following parallel paths (e.g. when walking two side-by-side swaths in the same direction how much does the left end of one path overlap the right end of the next path or vice-versa)?
      6) Have you ever measured your coverage?  How well do detectors with GPS (e.g. Minelab GPZ-7000 and Minelab CTX-3030) monitor ground coverage to this detail?  Have you used other devices to measure ground coverage.  E.g. I can imagine a drone with camera could provide useful data.  Are there smartphones app that would help quantify coverage?
       
    • By nebulanoodle
      Just dreaming...
      What'dya think? Minelab technology going on the next moon mission?
      X6 must be space-worthy.
    • By AUgetter
      If this question has been addressed elsewhere, I apologize in advance and hope someone can give me a link for it.  I have noticed that other companies besides Minelab are coming out with PI detectors for less than $3K.  How do these detectors compare to the best Minelab detectors for Gold and also relic hunting?
    • By JCR
      On the Anfibio Multi (and I think Kruzer & others) there is a definite step in sensitivity between 39&40 Gain and again between 69&70 Gain. Is this a change in the Internal Threshold? In a way this would be the inverse of the way the F75 adjusts sensitivity according to Mike Hillis.  Regardless, it is a very good set up in difficult sites. Most NM users know about the difference in response speed between 89 & 90 Gain on 3DI. This is different. I had read about these steps in a forum post that quoted Alper of NM. I can't seem to find that post now that I want to re read it.
    • By jasong
      https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2021016649A1/en?assignee=minelab&scholar&oq=minelab&sort=new
      This is the most out of this world Minelab detector patent I've ever read. There is so much here, some very sci-fi like, I don't even know where to start. My takeaway is they seem to be positioning themselves for a drone based detector eventually (main details in this patent could be easily transferred to a drone based platform - IMU, GPS, magnetometer, heads up display, FPV, remote control, robotic/vehicle mount, etc) . That is 100% a guess. But in the meantime, there is some interesting, novel items in the pipeline that we might actually see on a machine in closer future?
      No clue if this is a coin machine or gold machine or if it's something they are actually working on right now or just trying to get control patents on such things for the future which may or may not arrive. One thing is for certain, Minelab is BUSY in the engineering department. A few of the highlights:
      Heads up display over glasses/head mounted display (aka augmented reality). Settings, target visualization, shading of detected/not detected areas (I asked for this specifically 5 or 6 years ago here, awesome to see it in a patent now). Plus a camera showing the coil (why would you need that if not operating remotely as from a drone?) The detector has a camera, IMU (accelerometer) and magnetometer to determine position with accuracy. The IMU tracks the position of the coil in real time in relation to both the ground and the target, and combined with the camera video feed will provide a "visual" of the target in the ground through the glasses/head display, as in form of a heat map which increases accuracy with each pass of a coil over the target. A GPS tracks the machine position to properly map the IMU/coil visual target data on the ground and let's a user see the mapping as they detect. This data is recorded for future historical use and can be shared.  Centimeter accuracy with the visual target heat mapping. Potential operators/users include entities other than humans such as "robots" and "an AI (artificial intelligence) using a metal detector" and this line: "The metal detector may be handheld, mounted on a robotic arm of a vehicle or a robot."  Wireless connectivity to computers and phones, transfer of files containing settings configurations from instructors or expert users Remote control of the metal detector through apps on laptops or phones Ability to upload maps, including detecting data, historic human activity, buildings, or other items that seem to indicate custom mapping capability Internet connectivity, potential control through the internet (again, why if not for a drone type device?) "Teamspeak" to other detecting members in the area wirelessly Visual/spatial discrimination Accurate depth measurement Synthesized audio mode, eliminating noise completely and allowing the detector to "recreate" a synthetic audio stream based on data from prior swings Delayed audio processing (enhanced audio) mode or real time audio mode, ability to seperate multiple close targets, reason for this I venture a guess why below ---> This patent actually seems to be describing a completely new method of RX in a detector. Which is actually similar in some ways to the wacky idea I had years ago of reducing EMI/ground noise by emulating a radio telescope array. But in this case they appear to be describing a fairly ingenuous method of doing something similar with only one coil by monitoring RX of the same target at different points in the swing (with the IMU tracking these points) and combining all those RX signals. In this way (and this is my guess, the patent doesn't explain this), you can form a sort of comparator, gradiometer, or interferometer to seperate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. If that's what they are doing, then I find it to be brilliant. If not, then I just gave them one hell of an idea to patent for the future. 
      That probably sounds like jibberish to non-engineers. But I want people to understand the brilliance in simple terms. Consider this: EMI is random. At any given point in your swing you'll get noise here, but not there. So if you compare two points in the same swing, you will hear noise one point but not the other point because the "zap" already ended. But you might hear a good target at both points in the swing since it's not random like EMI, it's always there in the ground. So, you can effectively eliminate EMI by comparing what signal is not there at two very close points in the swing, and keep the target since it's always there.
      Similarly, with ground, the ground changes as the alluvium changes since soil is inhomogeneous. But a target is still the target. So, a similar method can be applied to the ground.
      In theory, you could use ideas like this to essentially get rid of the Difficult type timings and keep your gains boosted high, and deal with EMI/ground in this way instead which does not require reducing sensitivity. A totally new, novel approach to RX in a metal detector. The audio processing is very slightly delayed because they are using that time to compare measurements at a few different coil positions before letting the audio processor signal that there is a target present. That's my guess. If that isn't what they are doing, then someone else should patent that and thank me for it later when Minelab buys it. Either way, they have something totally new in the RX department here. And the future of detecting looks bright and interesting to me still.
    • 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.....
×
×
  • Create New...