Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Steve Herschbach said:

All the suggestions noted for trying to defeat masking help, but the key thing is the detector response time. The BBS/FBS detectors have a very slow response time and no amount of hunting methodology can ultimately defeat this.

All you have to do is spend to time on some basic tests like I did at this thread to show this clearly. It is not that the BBS/FBS detectors are not great units, but this is one area in which they simply do not compare well to other detectors.

The XP DEUS reactivity setting shows this well. Note that there is a direct trade off in response (reactivity) speed and maximum depth. A slow response allows the detector more time to take a "snapshot" of what's under the coil. The detector has more information to work with, and the audio response is full and easy to hear.

Fast response times "clip off" the signal. The faster you do this, the more depth is impacted. The audio response literally gets shorter and at high speeds is so attenuated it can be difficult to pick out a target signal. Think "beeeeeeep" versus "bip". In dense trash however attaining maximum depth is not as important as fast recovery time. The secret is being able to adjust the detector for either wide open spaces or dense trash - or anywhere in between.

xp-deus-reactivity-example.jpgxp-deus-v4-reactivity-chart.jpg

Great post Steve, I learned something here about "reactivity."

Enjoyed your "detector comparison" post, also...

Steve

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


6 hours ago, Tiftaaft said:

As do I Steve!  I think all of us turf hunters have come to grips with the fact that the good ol' days of walking through a dated park and getting easy high tones are long past (even though I wasn't detecting then... I still miss it.. haha).  So, as Steve H. has said many times... we just need to be smarter in our approach to detecting, and part of being smarter is using the best tools for the job... I may be dreaming a bit... but maybe the E800 will have me seeking out those iron infested parks that most of the other detectorists in the area avoid like the plague.  I'm willing to work for it... sounds like you are too :).  Tim.

Indeed, Tim.  I am one who has always shied away from the iron, instead tackling the challenge of the targets that have been missed due to being "too deep" for most.  I have had good success that way, but it's time for me to expand my skill set, put a "new tool in the toolbox," so to speak.  

I am indeed willing to "work for it."  I am really, really hoping the Equinox 800 turns out to be the perfect tool for the job...

Steve

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent video, khouse.  Really, really good.

Main problem I see with that, in reality (out on a hunt in a trashy iron site) though, is -- how do you know how high to set the disc?  Sure, setting the iron reject at 32 worked in that "controlled" experiment, with non-rusty, non-bent, same-sized nails.  But in real-world scenario, in dense iron, that 32 iron reject would leave me digging TONS of nails, I am guessing.  (And I'm "guessing," because I run an SE Pro, not an E-Trac, so I am not sure exactly how the FE numbers on nails translate over to an Explorer...I usually run my Explorer at Iron Mask 22, but I am guessing that 32 on the E-Trac would be something more like 26 or 28 on the SE Pro...

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, khouse said:

This video I made might help if you take the etrac back out to your nail bed?  I use this as my last resort - last pass to squeak out a tiny bit more targets.  But in your case this set up just might hit the ring?

That's a great video, thanks for posting it,

Another reason I sold my E-trac was that it would give you multiple ID numbers where I could get up to 7 or 8 sets of numbers and it would do the same in air tests too so there was no way could I get a baseline of what those target ID's should be, I took it and my other machine that was fitted with a 12" concentric, the ETrac ID'd 3 coins correctly and it ID'd  7 or 8 coins as junk, my other machine only got 2 or 3 targets wrong, Then came the Fine Gold chain test and it just could see them regardless of what coil was fitted,

This new 800 appears to be a breath of fresh air in that respect, I would be happy even if it just had one frequency as long as it was fast and did not let me walk over targets,

J.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Tiftaaft said:

So how do we combat that?

  • Dig the threshold nulls to clean out the area?

I agree with all of your bullet points, but this one is currently the only sure way of finding everything worthwhile, and unfortunately few of us have the time to go that far.  There's an interesting Tom D. writeup where he does just this.  I think he was on a baseball field.  He went over it completely with a VLF to where he couldn't get any more non-ferrous signals.  Then he went back with a PI and dug everything.  (I forget how many hours/days he invested but obviously it was a lot.)  In the end he found four times as many coins in the second part compared to the first!  Gives us hope there's still good stuff out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

I agree with all of your bullet points, but this one is currently the only sure way of finding everything worthwhile, and unfortunately few of us have the time to go that far.  There's an interesting Tom D. writeup where he does just this.  I think he was on a baseball field.  He went over it completely with a VLF to where he couldn't get any more non-ferrous signals.  Then he went back with a PI and dug everything.  (I forget how many hours/days he invested but obviously it was a lot.)  In the end he found four times as many coins in the second part compared to the first!  Gives us hope there's still good stuff out there.

Or you could use a single frequency machine with a fast recovery and get 99% of the finds and the use a PI like the TDI's and only dig either low or high conductive targets.

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, steveg said:

Excellent video, khouse.  Really, really good.

Main problem I see with that, in reality (out on a hunt in a trashy iron site) though, is -- how do you know how high to set the disc?  Sure, setting the iron reject at 32 worked in that "controlled" experiment, with non-rusty, non-bent, same-sized nails.  But in real-world scenario, in dense iron, that 32 iron reject would leave me digging TONS of nails, I am guessing.  (And I'm "guessing," because I run an SE Pro, not an E-Trac, so I am not sure exactly how the FE numbers on nails translate over to an Explorer...I usually run my Explorer at Iron Mask 22, but I am guessing that 32 on the E-Trac would be something more like 26 or 28 on the SE Pro...

Steve

True.  But once you dig a handful of nails you would use those to adjust your discrimination to you particular site.  I do indeed dig a lot of nails even setting it at 28.  But I don't dig as many as 32 depending on the site.  Basically all you're doing is discriminating out the nails on your site. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, auminesweeper said:

Or you could use a single frequency machine with a fast recovery and get 99% of the finds

Well, my fastest detector is the F75 in FA process.  That process seems to be the most susceptible to EMI, but particularly with the 5 in diameter DD coil it's minimized.  And of course I can always turn down the gain with any coil.  But the trashy areas I search are much easier with the 5 inch.

You guys have given me my setup and settings for tomorrow's hunt.  Thanks!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

Well, my fastest detector is the F75 in FA process.  That process seems to be the most susceptible to EMI, but particularly with the 5 in diameter DD coil it's minimized.  And of course I can always turn down the gain with any coil.  But the trashy areas I search are much easier with the 5 inch.

You guys have given me my setup and settings for tomorrow's hunt.  Thanks!

Well there are a lot of fast machines out there but I think the F-75 is about as fast as you need, Speed has it's place and the F-75 in Deep is a good combo to, I think that anything faster than the F-75 is just not needed.

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, auminesweeper said:

Or you could use a single frequency machine with a fast recovery and get 99% of the finds and the use a PI like the TDI's and only dig either low or high conductive targets.

J.

If only that were true, auminesweeper.

Actually, Tom Dankowski would say the OPPOSITE is true.  At some sites with heavy iron contamination, 99% of targets are actually SO masked, apparently, that even the very best, fastest "unmasking" machines are rendered entirely blind to those 99% of targets, by the iron.  

Dankowski would say that even our best machines are NOT truly "unmasking," we are nowhere NEAR that, technologically.  The only thing we are actually doing is seeing "around" the iron -- I.e. we have gotten a bit better a "separation" -- seeing targets "adjacent" to iron.  But iron SEE THROUGH -- i.e. seeing a target UNDER a piece of iron, is something that NO machine can do, period.

Here is my opinion.  We, as detectorists, are "misleading ourselves," in a way, by watching these videos where people put a coin next to a nail on the ground, and then test various machines' ability to see the coin.  We are drawing the wrong conclusions at times, I think.  That is NOT "unmasking!"  While tests are valid, in terms of seeing which machines have the best "separation," that is NOT the same as unmasking.  Coins in the same horizontal plane with nails (as all of these tests are) is a "separation" argument.  YES, it helps us to see which machines are best at SEPARATION.  But put those targets in a DIFFERENT plane -- with the iron in a plane a few inches above the coin, and see what happens.  THAT is where masking starts to be a problem.  Then, an even more extreme scenario, slide those coins (in that lower plane) UNDER the nails...THAT is "masked" target, and NO MACHINE AVAILABLE TODAY is going to find those.  We are nowhere near there, technologically...

And thus, to say you will get "99% of targets" with a fast recovery/single-frequency machine is entirely not true, in an iron-infested site.

Steve

 

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...