Jump to content

How Deep Do Today's Detectors Go Compared To Older Technology?


Recommended Posts

On 12/3/2017 at 4:17 AM, Steve Herschbach said:

“Sharp is similar to Normal but creates a more powerful detection field. It is capable of an improvement in depth, but is more susceptible to interference and will increase the severity of false signals in difficult grounds. This timing is best used in quiet conditions and can work well in combination with Deep Search Mode with a reduced Rx Gain setting. Sharp is an excellent tool for pinpointing faint signals due to the very "sharp" signal response. Sharp will work best with DD coils in most gold field locations.”

 

Have a guess who wrote that? :rolleyes:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


On 12/2/2017 at 3:37 PM, goldenoldie said:

Actually just found this video test between a GPZ and GPX on an undug target using larger coils.

 Hopefully Nenad does not mind me posting his test here on this forum and subject.

There appears to be very little difference between both the GPX and GPZ on this target.

Share away no probs. 

The big difference is that the GPZ in Normal with a slightly lower sensitivity could easily be run in that ground. The GPX would need the Sensitivity dropped to minimum, and you'd need to have good tolerance to noise. If I had a time machine, I would love to go back and try a big DD on the GPX. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Jin said:

In one of your videos JP,  Bruce Candy said that when you get up over 20" that the magnet field in the ground starts to play havoc (or something like that)

He was referring to the salt signal, once a coil size reaches the tipping point salt dominates the signal negating the depth advantage.

JP

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep but mainly it relates to PI machines, In short ground noise = Mineralization or mineralized hot spots, with VLF's it presents much larger issues, With new machines we have fast auto-track etc which deals with the changes but not with the feedback from the ground, It can be dealt with in a number of ways IE Whites V-SAT systems or/and running at a much lower gain but with the Older machines they were far better at dealing with such conditions, Where you could ground balance to help cancel out the ground like you can with newer machines but on the older models you could also adjust the DISC to cancel out any ground noise completely, and also they had a lot more power to the point of what a modern day machine can achieve using a 15" Concentric Coil the older machines can/could do using a 9.5" Coil.

When I spoke to a Whites engineer earlier this year he told me that a lot of power was lost when Detectors switched from Analogue to Digital, Because It was the Analogue components that created the Power, where as now it is all done via digital software,

Until a person can run side by side tests as I have done comparing the two technologies only then will you see the differences between them, and to be honest it is a Bitter pill to swallow.

John. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, auminesweeper said:

 

When I spoke to a Whites engineer earlier this year he told me that a lot of power was lost when Detectors switched from Analogue to Digital, Because It was the Analogue components that created the Power, where as now it is all done via digital software,

 

This is true however there is no reason why a manufacture could not increase the power output in a digital device.  Its not that the output devices for power are analogue its the drivers and receivers being analogue requiring that power to give us that information to dig or not to for machines of that vintage. :) 

Thing is, to me, there is no reason to do so as digital devices do not really require high power outputs to pull the most information out of the data they process.  In fact I expect it would be detrimental to a digital device with higher outputs as it would create more noise in the data than information.

I feel older tech is still good tech just have to have an operator behind the wheel to get the most from whatever they are using.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, there is good and bad from both types of tech, I just wish my VLF had the Raw grunt that my older machine has, Although my newer machine is very powerful now I have the coils sorted compared to all others, That old timer  has a heap of power and a Velvet Threshold that is rock solid even when flat out, and the use of the GB and the Disc to deal with the ground is dearly missed on modern machines.

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thoughts on the coils fellas.

Chatted with the Detech bloke in Daisy Hill the other day and he told me the 15 inch DD flatwound spiral coil will punch 200mm deeper than a conventional 18DD. Not sure if it was sales talk or not but if one was chasing big gold with DD coils then that claim is food for thought.

200mm is a fair margin...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 12/7/2017 at 5:25 PM, auminesweeper said:

Yep but mainly it relates to PI machines, In short ground noise = Mineralization or mineralized hot spots, with VLF's it presents much larger issues, With new machines we have fast auto-track etc which deals with the changes but not with the feedback from the ground, It can be dealt with in a number of ways IE Whites V-SAT systems or/and running at a much lower gain but with the Older machines they were far better at dealing with such conditions, Where you could ground balance to help cancel out the ground like you can with newer machines but on the older models you could also adjust the DISC to cancel out any ground noise completely, and also they had a lot more power to the point of what a modern day machine can achieve using a 15" Concentric Coil the older machines can/could do using a 9.5" Coil.

When I spoke to a Whites engineer earlier this year he told me that a lot of power was lost when Detectors switched from Analogue to Digital, Because It was the Analogue components that created the Power, where as now it is all done via digital software,

Until a person can run side by side tests as I have done comparing the two technologies only then will you see the differences between them, and to be honest it is a Bitter pill to swallow.

John. 

Greetings from mother Russia to all fellow treasure hunters. I have been into relics hunt for quite some time now in the wast 😉 wilderness of cold weather and hot drinks ) Coming to the same conclusion about analogue technology in MD was a revelation that has happened just a few weeks ago. Not satisfied with modern DD offerings I started building my own coils researching and reading russsian forums when I found a very wery 😅 promising design of square wave PI machine on md4u.ru. The detector recuperates the energy and hops through many loops with ultra professional analogue design. On the point of discussion here, the engineer who created the marvel MD comments that he refrained from using digital ics and blocks only because of the common sense, - if he was to use integrated circuits, it would either cost on power consumption or weight or signal resolution or combination of all these plus a number of other factors. As I gathered, this is the most sofisticated diy project and, to my mind, most advanced discrimation technology invented. Astounding one man show that can take on competition of Minelab and its latest GPZ (also uses square wave PI). The invention is currently tested with ferrite core rod in the search head. With certain improvements this type of device can test ground several meters with very little effect from any difficult soil types (another advantage of the design). 

9261F815-DB7E-47AC-BE5F-2EA04936519A.jpeg

C816C8FF-3D33-4CEB-BFAC-6910A2ABC17F.jpeg

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2019 at 9:05 AM, Stan Ipp said:

test ground several meters with very little effect from any difficult soil types

 

On 10/21/2019 at 9:05 AM, Stan Ipp said:

most advanced discrimation technology invented.

Sounds almost too good to be true but if it proves successful that would be certainly amazing!  

If you would like an Australian tester I would be keen  👍

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...