XP Dēus II & Minelab Equinox 800. Depth Test Surprise

[GhostLands]

Before starting recording and while covering the hole, i thought i had seen something orange falling inside the hole, but i wasn't sure... so after covering the hole, i went to try and see if i could pickup the signal from the coin at 31cm... I couldn't... and there was a iron tone on my nox... I didn't think that was normal because at that depth and on that type of soil the nox was supposed to have a iffy signal! So we uncovered the hole to see if anything had fallen inside...  Oh crap!! A mineralized pottery fragment...  and then, i had an idea... You will have to see it to believe it.

[relicmeister]

Pretty amazing well done

[palzynski]

Very good video thx.

There is an other simple "in the field" test which provides a very reliable idea of a detector performance  :

Go to one of your favorite sites , detect say 2 hours with the D2 , then 2 hours with the other detector ( an Equinox here ).  At the end compare the results, number of all targets , number of coins for each one . Then you will have a very accurate idea of each machine efficiency in real conditions . No bias with this method ( the tester does not know where the targets are ) , it is a purely statistical/mathematical method ...

I did such a test a year ago with a Deus1 HF , an Apex and a Vanquish 540 , this method works very well  🙂,look at the last post of the following thread : 

 

[palzynski]

1 hour ago, Loren said:

I like the idea of scanning real targets in the ground using both detectors, and using both detectors to do the initial acquisition of targets and then comparing each detector's response to a given target.

But the method quoted above clearly has some problems. E.g. the detector that detects first has the advantage. The first detector gets the location fresh, while the 2nd detector is used on a partially depleted location, making a comparison of their results invalid.

Yes this is a good remark , I should have said that the testing area should be large enough so that there is a negligible target depletion  after each detector testing . During this 2020 summer test I was in a very large field ( 800X500 yards ) with lots of targets remaining everywhere in the area.  Of course if I had done this test in a 20X20 or even a 50X50 yards area I agree the results would have been biased ..

Notice that during this 2 hours "iron trash" comparative test the final rating was Deus1 1st , Apex 2nd and Vanquish 3rd .  From the opinions I could get from other people in France and in this forum , I think that this rating is quite close from the reality , for example the D1 is a standard in Europe in the iron trash,  while the vanquish prefer cleaner soils ..

 

[palzynski]

19 minutes ago, Loren said:

...
Where you happen to randomly walk and in what orientation makes a significant difference.

It is impossible to follow an orientation in such big fields unless you have a GPS . I had no GPS in this field. So I believe that my test was almost 100/100 random . Statistics are mathematical things used for example by polls for assessing candidates during elections , they just need to ask a few thousands of people to have a quite good idea of the reality for a country , even if sometimes they fail ... 🙂   

But I am going off topic and I know that the forum admins dont like politics,  so Id better stop here lol ...🙂 🙂

[palzynski]

22 minutes ago, Loren said:

...

I am not saying the machine doesn't matter (I would say a good machine produces its superior results in the long run, difficult areas, hunted out areas, etc), but for a single hunt, where you walk in the location primarily determines what you will find ...

This is the principle of a poll , during a poll only a small percentage of the population ( usually a few thousands ) has  to answer to a given question . Then how do you explain that it works very well ?  Because statistics are also mathematics ...

Ideally yes the given question should be asked to all the millions of people of the country for having the exact result  , but of course it is not possible because it would be too far too long and expensive.

This is the same for detecting , ideally yes "the long run" with say 100 hours testing per machine should be done . Then 300 hours testing for my 3 detectors  . Who is going to do a comparative tests during 300 hours ? You may ask to calabash or CPT_ghostlight but I doubt they accept , not me anyway ...🙂