Most of the sites I hunt have very mild ground. I typically leave my GB at 0 most of the time. When I do take the time to Ground Balance, I usually get single digits with occasional numbers in the teens.
Do the GB numbers reflect the levels of mineralization in the soil? Do soils with high mineralization have higher numbers? The manual says nothing about it.
By Bohemia Miner
Here’s a topic for all you “Rocket Scientists” out there (and anyone else who’d like to chime in).
I was having a discussion with another dealer. He felt that single frequency worked better because there’s a certain amount of performance loss with Multi. I was always of the opinion that Multi-Frequency was the best for most types of Metal Detecting. It allows you to hit ALL the targets that react better to certain kHz.
Here’s an example from another hobby of mine (most of us have more than one). I shoot muzzle loading guns. The “Round Ball” type projectile that was used for hundreds of years performs best when shot out of a rifled barrel with a slow twist. Twist refers to the how many inches of flight it (the projectile) takes to make one revolution. The conical bullet came out during the Civil War and requires a faster twist. For modern muzzle loading rifles a slow twist would be 1 turn in 56, 60, 66, 70, etc. inches. For conicals, 32, 28, 24, etc. inches. In the 70s, one company came up with the idea of a “Compromise” twist; 1 tun in 48”. That way you only have to buy one gun. You can use Round Balls for Target shooting and Conicals for hunting. It shoots both “well”.
Having said all that, does the Single Frequency work better than the Multi? Is there any kind of lack of performance or trade off having them (kHz) work simultaneously?
By Steve Herschbach
Most people act like it’s all about depth. This machine versus that machine.... which is deeper?
In my experience for some things max depth does matter. Like gold prospecting. Get a GPX 5000 or GPZ 7000 and dig. Or beach detecting or relic detecting with PI detectors. If depth really was all that mattered, everyone would use a PI.
But we do not. Not even the gold prospectors and beach hunter. To state the obvious, not everyone can afford a GPZ 7000 or has access to ground where it will pay off. For some people, a Gold Bug 2 makes more sense. And not all of us are physically capable of digging deep holes for junk all day... we need to narrow the odds. Even if that means giving up depth.
VLF tends to be about discrimination, but again all it seems we hear about is depth. But what kind of depth? Depth with good discrimination? How good?
I am very cognizant when running a VLF that I’m not running a detector that gets max depth. That being the case, ergonomics and audio matter a lot to me. How it feels on my arm, and sounds to my ear. If I hate the sounds a detector makes I’m not going to enjoy things as much. Frankly, I can make up for a little less depth by just finding better sites or hunting longer hours, if that means having a detector I enjoy using.
I say depth is not everything when it comes to VLF detectors. Important, yes, but it perhaps it should not be the sole criteria for most people. What say you?
Of all the different types of metal detectors, the two box is the oldest(?) but also one of the least used. Defintitely a detector for special situations, but with a couple possible exceptions, for the proper situation it's the best choice for the job.
I'm aware of two standalone models still available new -- Fisher Gemini-3 and White's TM808. Garrett's Treasure Hound (see P. 43 of their latest catalog) and apparently a new kid on the block are attachments for specific standard (control unit + shaft + single coil housing) detectors.
In particular what has me wondering (and confused) is the fact that the Gemini-3, operating at 81.92 kHz doesn't appear to have a gound balancing adjustment but the TM808 (6.5 kHz) does. I was under the (naive?) impression that low frequencies are less susceptible to ground mineralization but here it seems in practice, it's just the opposite. Any thoughts/explanations?
I hope this topic hasn't already been covered and I'm not writing it in the wrong place.
Recently, based on my lack of knowledge in this sector, I have however noticed large differences in actual life, not only because of battery chemistry ...
I mean something about the use of power itself in using the tool.
Thinking of a mobile phone, the standby time is merely relative to the battery capacity, as is the duration in call or video call, much less long ...
So every time a detector is used in an area where there are several signals and we are busy digging or at least hearing many of them, the battery duration is more affected and reduced...
This for me, as an inexperienced, means not being able to have a clear measure of the actual duration of the battery pack ... You can never know regardless of how many signals will pass below the coil ...
So I then discovered the natural drop in voltage, added to that of absorption in the most arduous use ...
And what about threshold instability and false signals if, for example, a pulse is not properly regulated and a too low delay makes it continuously sound for nothing by activating the retuning?
At this point I have the impression that even with higher capacities, the voltage drop is the most difficult factor to defeat, even before the capacity ....
I am facing the insertion of bms modules in these days and in the future I could add step up or step down modules if necessary, but first I would like to understand to what extent it is possible to delay the cut off, if not eliminating some form of protection that these boards cut away leaving a lot of useful voltage.
Unprotected batteries can have a bad end if it is lithium, so there is a compromise between safety and durability ...
I repeat again ... I am not an expert and anyone who can add his knowledge on the subject, do it without brakes because I am well open to constructive technical comments, or even comic and bad ...
Hi, I am new to the forum. Anyone have any experience with this brand of detectors ?
I am thinking of buying a Minelab SDC 2300, but in my internet search last night, I came across this brand I have never heard of called UIG detectors. Looks like they have some interesting looking detector technology. Before I drop money on an SDC 2300, I want to make sure I consider the competition as there may be other reliable and fun technology to experiment with.