Jump to content

Deus 2 Vs Simplex High Mineralization Video


Recommended Posts

Highly mineralized ground is a game-changer and usually its the home team that loses. :wacko:  I thought my Equinox 800 would unlock places I've found some older coins in the past, but it turned out to just be incrementally better in target ID and depth. 

In parks near me, most coins start to lose a solid ID# at 4 inches and I find few coins at all past 6 inches.  Add in EMI or trashy areas and it becomes necessary to search at a crawl to find much.   Slow searching, being thorough, and digging iffy signals have helped as much or more finding things missed by detectorists in the past. 

I can definitely see similarities to how bad Paystreak's ground is with mine in my hunting areas.  It definitely cuts depth and makes signals much harder to decipher.  The video is a good example of how much bad ground effects detecting limits for sure.  Even multi-frequency can only do so much...

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, phrunt said:

I guess it won't be long and we'll see that, I expect very little difference to detectors already out there, I just don't understand anyone thinking another VLF is going to be a miracle machine when the technology is so maxed out already.

 

1 hour ago, phrunt said:

Why do you not just use a PI Burlguy? You're basically digging every iron signal anyway, you may as well have the superior depth the PI will give you and not even bother with another VLF.

Simon - I'm not surprised that from your perspective living in a detecting paradise as far as soil mineralization is concerned, the answers seem all so simple, but it is a lot more nuanced than that.  

Regarding VLF - of course no one who has any practical knowledge of vlf detecting technology is looking for miracles from this tech.  And no one is waiting for PI holy grails either, because they would have shown up by now.  The fact is that whether you are talking VLF induction balance or Pulse Induction, the induction principle to identifying metallic composition is pretty much tapped out.  As an electrical engineer, I am actually amazed at what the detecting industry has accomplished with Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction which is relatively crude way of identifying a material's properties.

No, hot dirt detectorists (at least relic detectorists) are not looking for detecting miracles with these machines, just an edge.  It doesn't necessarily translate into raw detection depth or accurate ID at depth.  The limitations on the higher end machines that do the best under these conditons typically all perform similar to each other in their depth capabilities.  What is important is repeatability and reliability when it comes to differentiating ferrous and non ferrous targets.  I don't give a whip whether I have an precise and stable ID, I just want a reliably accurate indication if the thing beeping under my coil is ferrous or non-ferrous.   Machines with poor performance in hot dirt may indeed have raw depth limitations, but a machine that can penetrate deep into hot soil but which also tells me a non-ferrous target is ferrous (which is what most tend to do), is practically useless>it forces me to dig it all.  However, if a machine can reliably tell me ferrous vs. mid-conductive non-ferrous at depth, that is indeed a game changer.  The machine that has had the best potential to doing this, has been Tarsacci, followed closely by Equinox, with Deus, despite great performance in iron, a distant third or worse.  Problem with Tarsacci is: it is very finnicky to set up with trial and error salt balance setting on land (which helps optimize its performance in high mineralization), relatively poor thick iron performance in hot soil (vs. Nox and Deus), poor tone audio (despite an excellent mixed mode implementation), mediocre to poor target ID stability, and abysmal menu interface/navigation.  Equinox, not quite as good as Tarsacci in the ferrous/non-ferrous differentiation in hot dirt at the edge of detection though it does give decent ID detection depth in the hot stuff (probably better than Tarsacci as far as that is concerned).  But it also does tend to drive all targets to ferrous at the edge of detection which is not helpful.  So the "miracle" I am looking for is something that bridges the gap between Tarsacci with excellent hot dirt ferrous/non-ferrous target differentiation at the edge of detection and good depth at which you can get a reliable target ID.  Based on the testing I have seen to date, not sure Deus II is going to bridge that gap.  For example, I am willing to take less depth at which I can get a reliable target ID (vs. Nox) as long as I can at least get a reliable determination that a non-ferrous target is indeed non-ferrous at the edge of detection deeper than I can get with Nox.  I think the jury is still out on that, but I am running some testing this weekend to start collecting some data.

Simon regarding your "just use a PI" comment, that's fine as far as that goes, except in thick iron, PI's simply tend to just overload to the extent that you can't even get a bead on the ferrous target position because of the "dumbell" dipole field effect.  Also, a PI will not simply see through the iron to detect a non-ferrous target, they don't separate well in a bed o nails situation.  So you have to remove the iron, anyway.  It's a lot easier to just use a VLF to pick the ferrous clean.  I'll let Burlguy verify, but based on my personal experience under similar conditions, PI really provides no benefit in Burlguy's situation. 

Cost becomes a consideration also, when you are talking a decent multi-channel PI.

A final word on VLF - some of the "anticipation" on the new crop of detectors is not just focused on miracle performance, either.  In the case of the D2 it is also about versatility, weight, and other factors that make it a great water machine.  For Legend, its value and bang for your buck, provided the performance is decent compared to the competition it is taking on.

HTH

PS In hot dirt, little iron, it's certainly my GPX that gets the call.  Things get sketchy when there is lots of iron about, lots of modern aluminum or other modern non-ferrous junk about, when my shoulder is about to give out from swinging the GPX for hours, or if it's raining.  That's where having a viable VLF alternative is helpful.  The fact that I can strap my D1 or D2 to my day pack while swinging the GPX while miles away from my truck is a bonus.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Calmark said:

Highly mineralized ground is a game-changer and usually its the home team that loses. :wacko:  I thought my Equinox 800 would unlock places I've found some older coins in the past, but it turned out to just be incrementally better in target ID and depth. 

In parks near me, most coins start to lose a solid ID# at 4 inches and I find few coins at all past 6 inches.  Add in EMI or trashy areas and it becomes necessary to search at a crawl to find much.   Slow searching, being thorough, and digging iffy signals have helped as much or more finding things missed by detectorists in the past. 

I can definitely see similarities to how bad Paystreak's ground is with mine in my hunting areas.  It definitely cuts depth and makes signals much harder to decipher.  The video is a good example of how much bad ground effects detecting limits for sure.  Even multi-frequency can only do so much...

That’s what I saw with Equinox also, less than an inch improvement over a half dozen of the best machines made in my magnetite laden ground. Bad ground flattens results seen in mild ground, making it very hard to find genuine differences on real found targets. I don’t do contrived tests except for quickie checks, so it takes me a ton of hours cross checking found targets to make my determinations. But that incremental improvement was just enough in my ground to eke out finds missed by all those machines.

It is also why I’ve been skeptical that the Deus 2 would blow past the Nox in my ground. Simply equaling the Nox would be a real achievement, and if I could eke another 1/2” I will be shocked. But I’m also an optimist, so fingers crossed that will be the case. I’m in no hurry though, so maybe a month away from me having my own answers to my questions about my targets in my ground.

If I am doing serious testing there is only one way I do it. For two detectors:

1. Take detector number one, go find a target. Play with settings to get best signal on this found target. This insures you are tuned up properly for this ground.

2. Check same target with second detector. Again adjust settings for best results on this ground.

3. Make notes on responses, dig the target, make notes on what it was, settings, depth, etc.

4. Swap detectors, and go find target with the second detector.

5. Cross check with first detector.

6. Continue swapping the two detectors and repeating this process for as long and as many targets as it takes to reach reasonable conclusions. A best case result is when one detector clearly finds and correctly identifies a target the other can’t find nearly as well, if at all.

7. Always realize results are only valid for the particular ground, and on the particular types of targets found. A totally different location with different mineralization and types of target (gold for instance varies greatly in different places) may yield different results, indeed, the machine that lost before, may now be the winner. EMI in urban areas is a huge factor in this regard.

This process can take many days if not weeks, and can't be rushed. The only thing we want detectors to do is find targets in the ground that usually have been buried a long time. There are weird 3D target mixes that occur only then and there. Air tests, test gardens, buried targets etc. all provide some information but in my opinion never substitute for extensive cross testing on "found targets".

My experience with modern VLF detectors is it is very hard to find genuine targets where one detector really shines compared to the other. With most targets both units will fare just as well. I therefore pay particular attention to fringe and "iffy" targets trying to get a situation where one detector has a clear edge over the other. Most machines are so good now it takes a lot of hours to find the edge, one over the other, if it exists at all. More often I just decide I like one or the other more for other reasons doing more with ergonomics and user interface, than anything else.

Sometimes I’ve looked like a detector store at the park! :laugh:
nokta-impact-xp-deus-teknetics-g2-minelab-equinox.jpg

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, phrunt said:

Why do you not just use a PI Burlguy? You're basically digging every iron signal anyway, you may as well have the superior depth the PI will give you and not even bother with another VLF.

I tried this with a Whites Beach PI DF. I was able to move a couple inches at a time between targets.  I am dealing with 3 generations of burned structures along with the the 1980's disaster of tenants digging holes and burying  household trash. I have been contemplating building a shaker screen table and excavating 100sq feet at a time. I know there is gold coins here.

 

  • Like 3
  • Oh my! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, burlguy said:

I tried this with a Whites Beach PI DF. I was able to move a couple inches at a time between targets.  I am dealing with 3 generations of burned structures along with the the 1980's disaster of tenants digging holes and burying  household trash. I have been contemplating building a shaker screen table and excavating 100sq feet at a time. I know there is gold coins here.

 

tractor and do some scraping 

strick

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or tilling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m glad my soil is not as severe as some have here. I know what would be missed if I couldn’t get past the 6” mark here in upstate NY. Machines like Equinox can whisper on a 12” silver quarter here, but struggle to do it under ideal circumstances. I certainly wouldn’t be hitting a 14” dime like some videos are demoing. It must be nice to have that mild a soil. A dime would come in around 10” max under the best of circumstances. More realistically in the 8”-9” range. That’s where I tend to make the best finds anyway. 

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
×
×
  • Create New...