XP Deus II Observation In Mineralized Ground

[Chase Goldman]

10 minutes ago, Glenn in CO said:

Thanks for your input and suggestions. I'll try these and see if I can come up with a combination that will work in my area. It would be great if I can get the Deus II to ID around the 7 inch depth area, as it is a lot easier to swing than the TDI. ?

Experimentation is the key.  I got different results at two different "full bar" mineralization sites.  Seems soil and mineralization type (or perhaps soil moisture content) makes a difference as I lost about an inch of ID depth at one site vs. the other (a couple hundred miles apart from each other).  Even though both sites just pegged the mineralization strength bargraph on the D2, I don't think one site was more mineralized than the other because the results flipped in different ways for different detectors (i.e., Nox beat D2 at one site and it was just the opposite with D2 beating Nox at the at the other hot soil site with the performance difference between D2 and Nox being about an inch...weird).  Just different mineralization/soil constituents, I suppose, causing the different detectors to behave in different ways.

[Glenn in CO]

8 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

I don't think one site was more mineralized than the other because the results flipped in different ways for different detectors (i.e., Nox beat D2 at one site and it was just the opposite with D2 beating Nox at the at the other hot soil site with the performance difference between D2 and Nox being about an inch...weird). 

Interesting! Thanks for the insight on the performance between the Nox and D2. Hopefully others who have both machines will chime in with their experiences.

[Ogliuga]

Glenn, if you want to try a good program to use on strong mineralization try with program n. 2 with disc 5, audio response 4-6, iron volume 5, reactivity 1-3. I don’t say in the video that Ground Stabilizer is on 1 and it’s very important for depth. I did a program based on prog.2, the name is Focus1. On low conductors buried in mineralized soils it’s very good. Just come back from the hematite area which is about 9 miles away from my home. This is the first test I’ve done on mineralized soil with v07 firmware. Focus 1, please name it what you want, is the same but with threshold because it uses Pitch tone which is performing on high mineralization without putting too much effort into the machine...less than PWM and maybe less than square as well. Now threshold works. I took the liberty of giving you some advice because, unluckily, I have to live with the mineralization problem and this is why I have pulse inductions as well.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtWzY4g8vx0

 

 

[Glenn in CO]

33 minutes ago, Ogliuga said:

Glenn, if you want to try a good program to use on strong mineralization try with program n. 2 with disc 5, audio response 4-6, iron volume 5, reactivity 1-3. I don’t say in the video that Ground Stabilizer is on 1 and it’s very important for depth. I did a program based on prog.2, the name is Focus1. On low conductors buried in mineralized soils it’s very good. Just come back from the hematite area which is about 9 miles away from my home. This is the first test I’ve done on mineralized soil with v07 firmware. Focus 1, please name it what you want, is the same but with threshold because it uses Pitch tone which is performing on high mineralization without putting too much effort into the machine...less than PWM and maybe less than square as well. Now threshold works. I took the liberty of giving you some advice because, unluckily, I have to live with the mineralization problem and this is why I have pulse inductions as well.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtWzY4g8vx0

 

 

Thanks! I will give your suggestions a try.

[Ogliuga]

Very nice and let me know!

[Chase Goldman]

40 minutes ago, Ogliuga said:

I don’t say in the video that Ground Stabilizer is on 1 and it’s very important for depth.

Yes.  It's good to specify this.  1 gives minimal ground response filtering (hence it is possible that you hear more chatter).  2 and 3 progressively increase ground response filtering which cuts down on chatter but potentially at the expense of filtering out whisper signals (effectively reducing depth or small target sensitivity).

 

48 minutes ago, Ogliuga said:

is the same [as Pgm 2] but with threshold because it uses Pitch tone which is performing on high mineralization without putting too much effort into the machine...less than PWM and maybe less than square as well.

Not quite understanding this statement.  Pitch is a tone mode setting (like Full Tones and Multi Tones (i.e, 2, 3, 4, or 5 tones).  PWM and Square are audio settings and they are applied to tone mode settings to modify their audio.  In other words you can have either PWM Pitch or Square Wave Pitch > one or the other needs to be selected, Pitch is not an independent 3rd audio setting.

[Ogliuga]

I say this because pitch works based on the distance from the target and not based on the conductivity. So, maybe, cpu works a little less..

[Chase Goldman]

 

38 minutes ago, Ogliuga said:

I say this because pitch works based on the distance from the target and not based on the conductivity. So, maybe, cpu works a little less..

Target conductivity still needs to be determined in order to display target ID which probably feeds the tone ID audio plus there is still iron determination which feeds iron audio even in Pitch mode so the target signal processing via the CPU is essentially the same even though Pitch audio lacks the target ID information that is still fed to the display.

[Ogliuga]

Thanks! Now I have to understand why full tones is less deep than 2 or 3 tones. And pitch is a single tone. On mineralized soils full tones is less deep than Pitch or 2/3 tones and thought that cpu, in full tones, has to work harder than 2-3 tones or Pitch..