Monte's Nail Board Test Questions

[abenson]

2 hours ago, EL NINO77 said:

Mr. Monte's test .. is a test that is sufficiently standardized ... and this means that the results of these tests can be reliably shared accurately and sufficiently compared between users around the world of detectors ..

Like I found out it's only standardized if you have an actual board Monte builds which you can purchase from him. The board I printed is way harder than his board. When you watch my tests on my board it's a head to head comparison.  You can't duplicate the same results I get. That's why there was so much controversy over my Apex test. Because on Montes board the Apex does much better than on my board, same with the Vanquish.

I don't think anybody is really out to skew the results in favor of one detector over the other, at least I'm not. The thing you have to remember is that many variables come into play that you or another person might not be able to duplicate. That's why I always put up one detector against another on the nail board test. Then it shows how each one does against the other. At that point it's a fair comparison it's not like I put one detector on a harder test than the other just so I can say one is better than the other.

[Steve Herschbach]

As long as one test setup is used and is identical for all detectors a person is testing, then it really does not matter. It is only when people are trading results that consistency is so important. And frankly you’ll not see much of that from what I have observed on the net.

I in fact promise my normal nail test board is not standard. It’s about four feet by four feet, and has an assortment of ferrous stuff plus hot rocks with multiple target setups. Custom made as needed. Montes test is too limited for me, as nails are not really my problem anyway. It’s all the stuff that creates false signals, like flat steel, any hardened steel, washers, etc. plus hot rocks. The only nails that trouble me in the wild tend to be broken square nails or bent nails. Separation matters but I am also testing for a propensity to accurately identify ferrous objects that create false non-ferrous readings. Nobody seems to test for that, but it is a rare detector that will accurately identify a simple round lid from an old steel can. It's not always the detector with the best separation, that's for sure.

A Steve Test Board....

[GB_Amateur]

24 minutes ago, abenson said:

Like I found out it's only standardized if you have an actual board Monte builds which you can purchase from him.

That seems overly restrictive in today's world.  I realize that (confirmed by Monte) your test setup was a bit smaller scalewise than intended.  Does that mean only those made by Monte match scale, though?  When he chimes in here (which I'm confident he will) I'm going to ask him to provide actual measurements that will allow us who print off page 4 of his monograph to make sure ours are to scale.

As far as repeatability from one place to another (let alone one operator to another), even Monte in his monograph brings up the differences in ground mineralization.  If I correctly interpret what he says in that document, he prefers it be placed on the ground.  Presumably he is trying to get the test as close to real life (specifically to duplicate the objects, orientations, locations,... of the original discovery test setup).

I think the point thats been made by several now -- that this is just one test whose interpretation alone shouldn't make or break a detector's worthiness -- is the most important thing to be respected.  Of course that's also the case of every YouTube video, regardless of the presenter, the location, the detectors used, and on and on.  Expand that to *every* report made anywhere in print or made public (including the WWW).

Metal detecting seems to have few standards, and that adds to the murkiness of the evaluation of detectors.  As limited as the Monte Nail Board Test is, it does at least offer insights into some performance characteristics, and for a given user/tester, lead to a choice when parallel conditions are presented in the field.

[Chase Goldman]

I just ask for informed objectiveness when people are posting comparison or performance videos.  Since there are so, so many variables at play, those videos simply serve as gross data points for me for setting expectations for real world demonstrations of a detector's capabilities in the field.  In other words, getting too wrapped up in the precision of these otherwise gross tests is just spinning wheels because in the grand scheme, the length or orientation of the nail or composition of the test target is easily overshadowed by all the other real world variables, it is not really worth losing sleep over.  Also, I think it is becoming pretty obvious we are so high up on the state of the technology curve for IB VLF detectors (a very gross measuring instrument in the first place) that the ultimate performance overall difference in detectors released in the last few years is really almost razor thin.  What matters more, from a value perspective these days is detector versatility.

[kac]

On 10/3/2020 at 7:24 PM, Steve Herschbach said:

A Steve Test Board....

Wow that looks like my back yard - the dirt!

[JCR]

Certainly not as elaborate as Steve's but I planted a 3D version of Monte's Nail Board with dug square nails @ 1-4" around a Cu penny @ 6". It's a tough target, but not unrealistic for some of my sites. It has really helped me to see the need to slow way down and massage each hit, It has also shown what each size coil can do and how different frequencies react with the ferrous and non ferrous. Without this 3D set up I would have just gone with the conventional wisdom that a higher frequency is better in iron, Now I know how 20kHz compares with 14kHz and 5kHz. High gain vs. moderate gain, I was surprised  by the clarity 5 kHz gives the tones, but you have to go slow and keep good overlap on any frequency. Now I know another way to help unlock a keeper out of the iron. 5 is not as quick as 20 but it adds it's own attributes if you let it.

[nickelNdimed]

I seem to remember folks also scoring detectors on this test or making references to X detector is a 6 on Montes nail board test. Can someone explain or point me to an explanation of this?  

Is there a sequence of sweeps? Does each direction count as a point if it reads picks up the penny? What if it picks up one way? What if one detector scores the same points but in a different combination of positive results?  Is it out of 8 or 16 or other?

[burlguy]

On 10/3/2020 at 4:24 PM, Steve Herschbach said:

As long as one test setup is used and is identical for all detectors a person is testing, then it really does not matter. It is only when people are trading results that consistency is so important. And frankly you’ll not see much of that from what I have observed on the net.

I in fact promise my normal nail test board is not standard. It’s about four feet by four feet, and has an assortment of ferrous stuff plus hot rocks with multiple target setups. Custom made as needed. Montes test is too limited for me, as nails are not really my problem anyway. It’s all the stuff that creates false signals, like flat steel, any hardened steel, washers, etc. plus hot rocks. The only nails that trouble me in the wild tend to be broken square nails or bent nails. Separation matters but I am also testing for a propensity to accurately identify ferrous objects that create false non-ferrous readings. Nobody seems to test for that, but it is a rare detector that will accurately identify a simple round lid from an old steel can. It's not always the detector with the best separation, that's for sure.

A Steve Test Board....

 The right section personifies my hunting conditions except it would need to be in the 3rd dimension as well. After 4 years of not finding a silver coin in the yard I have found 2 in the last week. I attribute this to going extremely slow.
I recovered a burned silver dime 4 days ago running a 6x8 coil on the v3i running a span of 50 in 3 frequency, half a dozen nails in the hole and dime is bubbled and curled like a potato chip. We need 3rd dimensional mapping and harmonic decay sampling?

[EL NINO77]

1 hour ago, nickeldNdimed said:

I seem to remember folks also scoring detectors on this test or making references to X detector is a 6 on Montes nail board test. Can someone explain or point me to an explanation of this?  

Is there a sequence of sweeps? Does each direction count as a point if it reads picks up the penny? What if it picks up one way? What if one detector scores the same points but in a different combination of positive results?  Is it out of 8 or 16 or other?

You have 4 directions / No. 1-2-3-4 / sweeping the spool and 2 coin positions, which is a total of 8 points ...

If any detector passes this test in each direction - with "double-sided" sweeping of the coil, this detector will deliver a full 8 points ....

however, there are situations when the tested detector in some direction of sweeping knows the data signal on the coin only from one side of sweeping ... and therefore for this direction of sweeping I count only 1/2 point ...

It's important ... because some detectors can only give one-sided signal-1/2 points even in different positions ... and so counting several such results can fairly appreciate the separation properties of a certain detector in this test ...