Any Ideas On This One?

[shopkins1994]

I took the Deus 2 out for the first time. I was using my program which was park with everything turned off and the reactivity set to the lowest it would go. I wanted the Deus 2 to dedicate its entire CPU to processing the signal. It found lots of coins at 4”-7” deep with a smashing signal. Before I dug each coin, I went through all of the default programs to see what they sounded like. With the exception of beach mode, the Deus 2 didn’t report anything. Zip. Nada. Any ideas why this could be? Now I’m afraid to hunt with any default programs. 
 

Sam

[Chase Goldman]

3 hours ago, shopkins1994 said:

I took the Deus 2 out for the first time. I was using my program which was park with everything turned off and the reactivity set to the lowest it would go. I wanted the Deus 2 to dedicate its entire CPU to processing the signal. It found lots of coins at 4”-7” deep with a smashing signal. Before I dug each coin, I went through all of the default programs to see what they sounded like. With the exception of beach mode, the Deus 2 didn’t report anything. Zip. Nada. Any ideas why this could be? Now I’m afraid to hunt with any default programs. 
 

Sam

You didn't provide enough information on how you set up Park vs. the defaults and it's not clear what you were doing when the Deus "didn't report anything".  How long did you run each program?  Did you really not dig anything, including trash?  Could be a matter of simply not getting your coil over any targets or you already vacuumed up the coins/trash.  Did you dig trash with your modified Park program?  What was the trash to keeper ratio?

Lots of unknowns from the reader's perspective.  I'll just say, I have no fear of the default settings on most of the programs from a performance standpoint.  They are set up pretty well based on cycling through them on known test targets, so I'm at a loss to understand your situation...

 

[shopkins1994]

14 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

You didn't provide enough information on how you set up Park vs. the defaults and it's not clear what you were doing when the Deus "didn't report anything".  How long did you run each program?  Did you really not dig anything, including trash?  Could be a matter of simply not getting your coil over any targets or you already vacuumed up the coins/trash.  Did you dig trash with your modified Park program?  What was the trash to keeper ratio?

Lots of unknowns from the reader's perspective.  I'll just say, I have no fear of the default settings on most of the programs from a performance standpoint.  They are set up pretty well based on cycling through them on known test targets, so I'm at a loss to understand your situation...

 

Hi Chase. Thanks for the response. I figured out what happened. My program is better than the stock programs and did what it was suppose to -- find coins that the Deus II programs can't find, by increasing the CPU ticks available to the RC for processing. More ticks = more more CPU available to process harder signals = more coins. I did not think that I would receive as much CPU ticks as I did. The Deus 2 must waste a lot of CPU ticks on its filters. 

I made a Youtube for anyone wanting to increase the power of their Deus 2 in both depth and ability to process more complex signals.  

 

[GB_Amateur]

20 hours ago, shopkins1994 said:

(Custom program) found lots of coins at 4”-7” deep with a smashing signal. Before I dug each coin, I went through all of the default programs to see what they sounded like. With the exception of beach mode, the Deus 2 didn’t report anything. Zip. Nada.

How mineralized is your soil?  What gain(s) were you running?  A 4" coin not signalling in any default program except beach??

[shopkins1994]

48 minutes ago, GB_Amateur said:

How mineralized is your soil?  What gain(s) were you running?  A 4" coin not signalling in any default program except beach??

Hi. I made a mistake that beach mode was detecting it. These coins were found because of the added CPU ticks achieved from the above video. I don't think depth was a depth issue, it was rather they were in a difficult position and the Dues 2 needed more ticks to detect them. I repeated this this again and again today by pulling more coins out of the ground. Each time I found a coin in my program I tested the default programs and they did not detect them. Only my program got them, again presumably from the added ticks. 

[Guest]

On 2/21/2022 at 11:35 AM, shopkins1994 said:

Hi. I made a mistake that beach mode was detecting it. These coins were found because of the added CPU ticks achieved from the above video. I don't think depth was a depth issue, it was rather they were in a difficult position and the Dues 2 needed more ticks to detect them. I repeated this this again and again today by pulling more coins out of the ground. Each time I found a coin in my program I tested the default programs and they did not detect them. Only my program got them, again presumably from the added ticks. 

So reclaimed processing power allows you to see what was previously invisible to the machine in other modes and presumably other machines? Seeing coins on edge better for one thing, does this also allow you to unmask coins near iron? 

[Jeff McClendon]

Absolutely no comment from me........

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Jeff McClendon said:

Absolutely no comment from me........

What I thought too, but it is such an interesting question I cannot resist. Freeing up processing power should allow tasks remaining to all perform better, but what should and what is are often different things.

Because I use a different detector, it will remain an open question till Spring arrives, but it is very interesting to think about. To date I have been looking for what to add, now looking at what to take away. The possible ways to do that creates a different sort of complexity.

[shopkins1994]

1 hour ago, Geezer said:

So reclaimed processing power allows you to see what was previously invisible to the machine in other modes and presumably other machines? Seeing coins on edge better for one thing, does this also allow you to unmask coins near iron? 

Yes. A detector has both limited processing power and limited time to process a signal. The more time or CPU you can give the the detector the better your ending result. Metal detector manufacturers should start posting what their CPUs are like computer manufacturers do. The moral of the story is to only add on what you need -- and everything comes at a cost. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, shopkins1994 said:

Yes. A detector has both limited processing power and limited time to process a signal. The more time or CPU you can give the the detector the better your ending result. Metal detector manufacturers should start posting what their CPUs are like computer manufacturers do. The moral of the story is to only add on what you need -- and everything comes at a cost. 

So that is how the reactivity can give depth, as shown by NCtoad on your other thread last night. It gives more time for processing. Removing all unnecessary tasks gives more available power for processing.

Thanks for taking the time to make it understandable.