Testing The Vanquish 540

[palzynski]

2 hours ago, phrunt said:

I don't bother burying shallow coins to test, I rarely find shallow coins around here 

Actually around here we are very often looking for small shallow coins among ferrous , this is very specific to European sites I am quite sure you dont have such situations in NZ or in the US .So this is why I think that those nail board tests are interesting, so I will try to investigate on this ...   Will look your video later thx

[palzynski]

1 hour ago, phrunt said:

Don't get me wrong, I know nothing about this stuff, I was just surprised how well everyone's detector was doing with nails nearby in these tests so i dropped one near my buried coin then was all disappointed none of my detectors could see the coin when the nail was there.  Sure it's an old rusty square nail I found prospecting so I tried a modern nail, no difference.  They were all blind to it, a bit disheartening.  I think it's very uncommon a nail and a coin are going to be sitting next to each at the exact same depth but it obviously happens as I've found coins with nails, that means those tests are pretty pointless in common real world situations.  Now I need to find myself a detector that can do it.  CTX? XP Deus?  If I was hunting in iron which isn't very likely here fortunately no detector I own would be ideal by the looks of it.  I'm now wondering how many good coins I've missed due to masking.

I'd love to be proven wrong.

I have a Deus HF ( white coil ).  It is the perfect machine to me for iron trashed areas, as long as you know how to use it , because there are 10 modes availables then it is a little complex. So you must know the right mode to use, and choose the right frequency. Actually the mode that everybody uses over here is the 3rd mode called "Deus Fast" . Then the only setting to change on the field is the frequency , 14khz on low iron trashed areas,  30khz on high iron trashed areas .  Also the Deus like other machines has its specific audio so it takes a little time to learn it.

But I would rather recommend the XP Orx because it is newer , simpler , cheaper at 700e , and offers exactly the same performances as the Deus, with the excellent 9inches white HF coil. 

Concerning the CTX actually I have never tried this machine , definitely too heavy for me , even with a harness ... An Orx weights 750grams , a CTX weights 2,36kg …  So no discussion on the ergonomy I think ..🙂

BTW I just saw that you have a T2 . On some T2 versions ( called T2 UPG here )  there is a "FA" mode which is excellent on iron trashed areas , even if monotone . Works very well...

[EL NINO77]

This will change .... that when I found good signals in the field detection in a place that I have already detected by many detectors .. So it meant that this objects were already stored in the ground and masked by iron, so the previous detectors did not find it ...

Sometimes it was a combination of a fast detector and a standard large coil ,, which proved in the depths to find a coin near iron ,, or it was a medium fast detector with a small coil that found a coin or 2 coins led itself at iron .... but more at the surface terrain, where this signal and other detectors simply passed ...

Now I can responsibly say that the separation 2D Nailboard test and the 3D depth test can evaluate well enough how a given detector will be separated and detected in iron ...

Perform these tests on a detector which is known in practical detection as an excellent detector for separation in iron ...

Perform these tests on a detector known as an average or weak detector for separation in iron ....

Find out for yourself that these test results correspond quite accurately with the given characteristics of the detector.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, my colleagues/ Top Digin / from the Polish Detection Forum have started to deal with this idea - and have created a real test field with 30  test points-/ coins/ ... where some coins are placed near iron or coke ...

The maximum evaluation of the test is 150 points. And it is progressive .... This means that for a more demanding detected signal, the detector will get more points ... but as you will see in the tests .. it is a really harder nut ...

So far, this test field is relatively heavily mineralized .... which significantly reduces the correct detection of the coin .... and for each detector it is really challenging ...

Accurate statistics are kept on the detection of various objects, and the humidity and temperature of the terrain are also recorded .... so some tests are performed on dry and later also on wet terrain ....
You can see the results in the link below the test ...

soon ... these tests will be reworked into English ...

 

 

 

 

 

[palzynski]

1 hour ago, EL NINO77 said:

….

Now I can responsibly say that the separation 2D Nailboard test and the 3D depth test can evaluate well enough how a given detector will be separated and detected in iron ...

Perform these tests on a detector which is known in practical detection as an excellent detector for separation in iron ...

Perform these tests on a detector known as an average or weak detector for separation in iron ....

Find out for yourself that these test results correspond quite accurately with the given characteristics of the detector.

...

I will just give you an example of why the static tests are very interesting , but will never replace "real world" field tests.   Once I was testing a new mode of the Deus called "DEEP" .  So first as usual I did a static depth test on my test boxes and the Deus was really impressive with this "DEEP" mode , it was picking the coins incredibly at depth , far better than the other Deus modes and other detectors , it was amazing .... So I was really happy with that and I went detecting on the field.  I went to one of my favorites test sites.

Believe me or not , I just tried this DEEP mode a few minutes , because it was catastrophic and unusable on the field, far too noisy and unstable… However in this case the static  tests had been excellent  ... btw I suppose that this DEEP mode can be used in only very specific situations , no iron at all , low mineralization , I do not know actually , I never tried this mode again ...🙂

 

So for me testing a detector is 2 parts : static and field tests, and I have a little theory on this , which works quite well I think :.

1) If the static tests are ok , then you have a good chance that the detector will be ok on the field , but it is not a guarantee

2 ) if the static tests fail , then you can be sure that the detector will fail on the field. For example if I have poor depth perfos on my test boxes , I am sure that the detector will not go deeper on the field, no miracle ….  

So to conclude these static tests help a lot to try different settings of a machine , but again they are not a guarantee . There are other parameters involved when you are moving with a detector on the field , the ground is changing , the ferrous are never the same .All these things cannot be seen on static tests I think …  

BTW  I will look at the polish test videos when I have a few minutes .. 

 

 

 

[EL NINO77]

We are talking about separation tests ..... where special Depth programs on detectors will work counterproductively ....

Of course, you will more or less test the detectors on programs designed for better separation .. ,, among other things, these separation programs also work better in more mineralized terrain ../- because it uses a higher recovery speed / ....

The exception is Analog detectors .... but also there with some Analog detectors .. special modification of GB for better separation / Vista gold Gain / can reduce the maximum depth of detection ... ...

[palzynski]

1 hour ago, EL NINO77 said:

We are talking about separation tests ..... where special Depth programs on detectors will work counterproductively ....

Of course, you will more or less test the detectors on programs designed for better separation .. ,, among other things, these separation programs also work better in more mineralized terrain ../- because it uses a higher recovery speed / ....

The exception is Analog detectors .... but also there with some Analog detectors .. special modification of GB for better separation / Vista gold Gain / can reduce the maximum depth of detection ... ...

Yes I will test detectors designed for better separation , because 90/100 of the areas that people detect over here contain ferrous. . So a machine that has poor separation has no interest for us … And this one of the reasons why the Deus is a standard here …  Low mineralized soil over here .  Actually I do not know the detecting conditions in Slovakia , perhaps the soil is more mineralized than here ...

Actually I think that a good test procedure would be the following :

1) static depth test on ground boxes

2) static separation test ( board test or ground+nails box ? )

3) field test on clean and iron trashed areas

This for a given type of ground , say low mineralized . If you have both soils , low and high mineralized you have to duplicate the tests , it becomes quite complex ..; Hopefully we only have low/moderate  mineralized soils over here in the North of France, so hopefully I do not really bother with mineralized situations 🙂 ...

 

[palzynski]

Another very positive post about the V8 coil below from Monte . It looks like everybody agrees on the fact that the Vanquish V8 is a very good coil …

btw at this moment most of my test areas are not available ( open fields ) , they will be available  this summer when they will be ploughed , so then I will have an exact idea of the V8 performance compared to my Deus HF .

However from the few tests that I have already done with the V8 I have the feeling that the Deus HF will still have the edge on ultra iron trashed soils ,  future will tell ...

………………...…......………......…………………...

Having 2 of the Vanquish 540's ….

The other, and most-used, V-540 keeps the excellent 5X8 DD coil attached …..

...............................................................

The thread :

 

[palzynski]

On 5/9/2020 at 11:23 AM, phrunt said:

Don't get me wrong, I know nothing about this stuff, I was just surprised how well everyone's detector was doing with nails nearby in these tests so i dropped one near my buried coin then was all disappointed none of my detectors could see the coin when the nail was there.  Sure it's an old rusty square nail I found prospecting so I tried a modern nail, no difference.  They were all blind to it, a bit disheartening.  I think it's very uncommon a nail and a coin are going to be sitting next to each at the exact same depth but it obviously happens as I've found coins with nails, that means those tests are pretty pointless in common real world situations.  Now I need to find myself a detector that can do it.  CTX? XP Deus?  If I was hunting in iron which isn't very likely here fortunately no detector I own would be ideal by the looks of it.  I'm now wondering how many good coins I've missed due to masking.

I'd love to be proven wrong.

I have just seen your video. Clearly I agree no detector will locate a coin buried at depth just under a nail. This because as you said the shallow nail signal is much stronger than the deep coin signal.

But on the other hand ,if you have like over here very small shallow coins surrounded by nails , and if the nails are a little away from the little coin,  a very reactive high freq machine like a Deus HF set at 30khz or a tesoro Lobo at 18khz may give a good signal. Low freq machines at 5khz will for sure miss this coin.  

If you look at the history of the detectors , in the 80/90s they were rather running at low freqs like 5khz for the Fisher F65X. And later the manufacturers/users realized that using high freq increases the ability of a machine to find small shallow targets among little ferrous.

In France I remember that it was the Tesoro Lobo ( called Redoutable over here) at the end of the 90s which started this high freq little revolution with its miracle 18khz frequency ... 

So yes we all miss good coins due to iron masking . However in open fields the ground is regularly changing due to the agricultural tasks, so you will perhaps find this year a coin that you have missed up to now because its surrounding ferrous have moved a little bit away ...

 

[EL NINO77]

On 5/9/2020 at 6:27 PM, palzynski said:

Yes I will test detectors designed for better separation , because 90/100 of the areas that people detect over here contain ferrous. . So a machine that has poor separation has no interest for us … And this one of the reasons why the Deus is a standard here …  Low mineralized soil over here .  Actually I do not know the detecting conditions in Slovakia , perhaps the soil is more mineralized than here ...

Actually I think that a good test procedure would be the following :

1) static depth test on ground boxes

2) static separation test ( board test or ground+nails box ? )

3) field test on clean and iron trashed areas

This for a given type of ground , say low mineralized . If you have both soils , low and high mineralized you have to duplicate the tests , it becomes quite complex ..; Hopefully we only have low/moderate  mineralized soils over here in the North of France, so hopefully I do not really bother with mineralized situations 🙂 ...

 

I will answer your questions:

1 .. A .. I would suggest an in-depth test on low mineralized terrain .... -that will show the maximum practical depth of the detector as well as the quality of displaying ID or audio signal ..

 B. Further testing should take place in more mineralized test boxes on 4-bar-0.4% magnetite ..and 7bar -4.4% magnetite ...- it will be shown whether the detector is really universal and can work on a wide range of different mineralized terrain ...
The results may surprise you ....

I still use the Extreme Load Test detector and 2 test boxes with 12% mineralization of Magnetite and 33% mineralization ...
Here, any technological limits or even the advantages of individual detectors will be fully demonstrated ... ,,,

2. A good separation test should be standardized and I will use it as a quality 2D test for many years ..... Monte Performance Nailboard Test .... in this test you will quickly find out the gaps as well as possible shortcomings of the tested detector and coil ....

I recommend this test as an excellent test for the correct setting of the detector program for quality separation .. it concerns both digital and analog detectors ...

Never underestimate the size of the coil in this test .... very many detectors have poor separation in iron because people do not use the correct size of the coil for quality separation in iron ...

For the 3D test, I recommend a deep separation test from the video ....

https: //www.youtube.com/watch? V = NIrZsdW3vPQ

If the tested detector has good results in both 2D and 3D test, then it is really a quality separation detector ...

Although in Slovakia we mostly have mild and moderately mineralized terrains, you can also meet in the mountain areas from stronger mineralized conditions ..

A similar situation is in the area of the Spanish Pyrenees, where I also detect in the summer ..

Yesterday I started to make a comparison in the field of Minelab Vanquish 340 on a V8 coil and Tesoro mojave on a 6 "CC coil ...

This terrain is very dirty with iron and there is a problem to find any non-ferrous object ,,, and the last coin it found before the time of Tesoro Mojave on a 7 "CC precision coil ..

 Yesterday I marked about 15 "suspicious" targets with Tesoro Mojave with 6 "CC and then I checked them and dug them out with a Minelab Vanquish 340s V8 coil ...

[EL NINO77]

I will do one more such test and publish my observations.