A "holy Grail" In Jewelry Hunting Has Been Achieved!

[Past Member]

In regard to TT "patterns":

Metal detecting ID plotters have no pattern, unless we're talking about a specific target, at a specific depth, at a specific orientation, etc. Too bad that's not how metal detecting works ?

In regard to the assertion that an ID plotter can distinugish between aluminum trash and gold jewlery:

That's profoundly ludicrous on many levels. A member on another forum said it best, when he replied to that assertion with:
 

Quote

Invite the claimant out to the nearest blighted inner city park. Turn them loose. So how many gold rings they find, and how much aluminum they leave behind. And : You will hear the sound of crickets. They will NEVER take you up on this challenge.

And mind you, I'd be fine if the ratio were 30 or 50 to 1 of "getting fooled" . If all it took for me to get each gold ring, was an average of 30 or 50 aluminum items, I would gladly dig those 30 to 50 targets. SO WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR PERFECTION.

And here's where it gets tricky, because when you grant the "30 to 50" (so that the claimant can not say you're being overly demanding of perfection), then the claim can never, in effect, be proven. Because no matter HOW much aluminum they dig, they can continue to say : "I never said it was perfect". But when they FINALLY dig a gold ring, they say "aha !! It works !!". But if that's the case, then: At WHAT POINT does it just become random chance ?? 

In my words, he's saying there a lot of mental gymnastics at play, to try and make it look like an ID plotter can do the impossible. Fundamentally, it's wishful thinking and more importantly, confirmation bias.




 

[Mike_Hillis]

 

6 hours ago, Digalicious said:

Invite the claimant out to the nearest blighted inner city park. Turn them loose. So how many gold rings they find, and how much aluminum they leave behind. And : You will hear the sound of crickets. They will NEVER take you up on this challenge.

Now that IS funny, Dig.   I thought you WERE Tom.   

HH
Mike

[Past Member]

Ha ha.

Tom is much better than I am at putting his thoughts into words.  Especially when it comes to asking for permission. Man, he could write a book about that! ?

[UT Dave]

11 hours ago, Digalicious said:

Thanks for the explanation.

The opacity of TT's dots is based on the signal strength. So, to be clear, when you say "granular", you're referring to opacity. Correct? 

Let's say that 76 ID is a penny with no ferrous co-mingling going on. Why would that 76 penny show on the ferrous axis?

 

 

No, I used the word granular in regards to how incredibly adjustable the Manticore ferrous limits are.  To a really granular level.  And they are graphically displayed on the TT and the relationship of a signal to those limits is evident on the TT but almost completely missing with just the ID number.

A clean copper penny with a 76 ID and with no co-mingling, ground and depth not withstanding, I would fully expect to land solidly on the non ferrous line.

There's not just one 76 though.  There is a whole range of 76's from the top of the upper ferrrous limits, down through the non-ferrous line to the bottom of the lower ferrous limits.  The ID only shows two of them, ferrous or non-ferrous.  There are two types of ferrous on the Manticore though and the TT shows which, or sometimes both, an ID is landing in.  The ID only shows it's one of the two types of ferrous - if, the signal lands in your ferrous limits.  Or TT shows if it's reporting a non-ferrous ID that is actually not on the non-ferrous line but between it and the upper or lower ferrous limits. 

It's just information, clues, whatever you want to call it that the ID, by itself, does not provide.  It's what the audio is also reporting.  But in a format that is easier to understand and especially easier to interpret how cross checks compare.  No magic.  But not what you keep saying it is as just a singular plot of a singular ID, either.  That's not how the Manticore works.  Might be helpful to think of TT as  providing a graphic representation of the FE number to go along with the CO number.  I'm finding TT to be a pretty darn good iron probability indicator.  Or a corroded copper or brass indicator.  Or a non coin shaped, coin sized indicator.

- Dave

[Past Member]

On 7/18/2023 at 6:45 PM, UT Dave said:

It's just information, clues, whatever you want to call it that the ID, by itself, does not provide.  It's what the audio is also reporting.  But in a format that is easier to understand and especially easier to interpret how cross checks compare.  No magic.  But not what you keep saying it is as just a singular plot of a singular ID, either.  That's not how the Manticore works.  Might be helpful to think of TT as  providing a graphic representation of the FE number to go along with the CO number.  I'm finding TT to be a pretty darn good iron probability indicator.  Or a corroded copper or brass indicator.  Or a non coin shaped, coin sized indicator.

- Dave

(My underlines)

I've always said that the benefit of something like TT, is in iron identification. More specifically, identifying iron falsing. For example, an object gives a good tone, and a nonferrous ID. But, TT also shows some plotting in the ferrous area. In that scenario TT is definitely giving more information than ID, because TT is showing the ferrous content that ID isn't showing (typically meaning iron falsing). I use a similar method to help identify iron with my Legend's Ferrocheck, which simultaneously shows the strength of the ferrous signal, and the strength of the nonferrous signal. A similar tactic to this is the eTrac's FE/CO numbers, and the D2's X/Y screen.

-----------------------------------------------------------

You said, "I'm finding TT to be a pretty darn good indicator of non coin shaped".

Oh Oh. There's that "shape" word again ?

An ID plotter in no way denotes the shape of objects. For example, when doing a short wiggle interrogation sweep on a target, the ID can show 45, 47, 46, and TT will show an elongated smear on the nonferrous axis. I can see how in that scenario, some would erroneously interpret TT's elongated smear as showing the target's shape. I'm not saying you are doing that, but I know some are.  Anyway, that 45, 47, 46, is not an elongated target, but rather and most likely, nonferrous co-mingling, or a nonferrous object like a coin, gold ring, pull tab, or piece of foil, that isn't oriented perfectly flat toward the coil.