Effects Of Ground Balance On Target Depth?

[tboykin]

My personal preference after using the first gen TDI, TDI Pro, and SL is the SL. It's light, affordable, and works where VLFs will not. I also use it to hunt deep silver that other people can't reach. You can use a combination of the ground balance and conductivity switch to knock out iron and cherry pick other targets.

I know everyone likes Minelab here, which I get - it's a prospecting board first and foremost and they focus on gold machines. But you name me another ground-balancing pulse machine for under $1200 (and under 4lbs) that can do what the TDI SL can do and I will go without my coffee tomorrow!

[auminesweeper]

One of the things were people go wrong with PI's is people want depth and power, I believe that in most cases people can get away with using a VLF, To a lot of folks the PI has become more of a crutch than a Tool, without ever measuring the ground conditions they just grab the PI and then wonder why they either mis'ID targets or wonder why the depth is less than spectacular, when in fact a Good VLF might do even better in more mild conditions and also help ID'ing junk too,

I try to use a VLF first and only use a PI as a last resort or in ground that is littered with hot rocks and basalt, stick the 12" coil on the MXT and it will match the TDI's until the GND numbers get in the high 70's early 80's or switch to an equal sized DD and work that until things get too much, I tried one of my PI's in normal ground once and my VLF went deeper and I was using one of the better PI's at the time, I worked my tail off and I went over the same ground and my VLF ID'ed good targets and it went deeper, In soil similar to that in that video I would not use a PI machine because it does not look like highly mineralized ground to me, I know looks can be deceiving but that's the chance you take, There is a great post here under the name of Guide to Nugget detectors,  and it explains the theory of using the VLF's first,