Axiom 13x11 GPX 4000 14x9 Coiltek Depth Test Deus 2 Also

[palzynski]

10 hours ago, EL NINO77 said:

.....Alain, you are definitely using a test box that already has a moderate degree of mineralization... and therefore your results will be 20 or maybe even 25 percent less than it would be in the case of a test box with pure silica sand..
This only indicates how the depth of detection can change in a different type of terrain...

 

Pure silica sands : do you often have these "sandy "conditions in Slovaquia ?

I know that in the south east of Poland they have a lot of sandy areas because I have been several times there . This is not the case over here in the North of France where we rather have moderately to mid mineralized areas .. 

[EL NINO77]

In northern Slovakia, we have so-called sandy forests, although the situation can change after driving a few kilometers, and you will reach a band of sand and clay...or stone mineralization....
A similar situation also occurs in Spain, where I have terrains that are very light, even terrains with red soil.. or stony soil.. which are really mineralized..

but be careful... even in easy terrains, the size of the coil can be a limiting factor... and let's say that if you want to achieve the best depth results, you have to use larger 13-15" coils..
11" coils simply lose performance on the deepest targets..

That's why I'm very interested in how different detectors work in such areas... and what the practical depth of detection is...

Jeff's tests are generally conducted on heavily mineralized ... and it's really good to compare how different excellent detectors work in these conditions ...

It will be very interesting to see. if Jeff has the opportunity to compare PI detectors on larger coils...

[Jeff McClendon]

On 2/4/2024 at 2:33 PM, palzynski said:

3.2 gr is a little coin , on my tests which use a little mineralized soil my results are rather 20 to 23cms depth on such a coin and I have tested  a lot of detectors too ..  Only a 10g coin would be detected at 30cm on my bed tests .

You probably have an extremely low mineralized soil at your test location 

This 1911 US Barber silver dime was recovered yesterday, February 14th 2024. It is a little worn and weighs 2.24 grams. It was 10" deep. The Fisher F-Pulse pinpointer's total length is 9.5" and it does not reach the top of the hole. The 8" (20.5 cm) mark is clearly visible on the side of the pinpointer if you enlarge the photo.

I had my Deus 2 with 13X11" coil and Manticore with 11" coil with me at the time. Both detectors could detect this deep coin. There was aluminum and iron trash very close by this target and I had to remove those targets first just to make sure that this target was legitimate. Even after removing those adjacent shallower targets, the dime still had very "iffy" responses but I had both detectors setup well for high conductor target recovery for the soil conditions at this location. Any repeatable very high tone responses were investigated if they appeared to be deep according to the depth indicators and audio quality on both detectors. Both detectors clearly indicated a possible deep high conductor coin from the audio responses and from their target ID tendencies.

 

 

 

I did not take a picture of the iron mineralization reading on Deus 2 at the time. The photo included is one from a different hunt at the same location.

 

 

[palzynski]

19 hours ago, Jeff McClendon said:

This 1911 US Barber silver dime was recovered yesterday, February 14th 2024. It is a little worn and weighs 2.24 grams. It was 10" deep. 

I had my Deus 2 with 13X11" coil and Manticore with 11" coil with me at the time. Both detectors could detect this deep coin. There was aluminum and iron trash very close by this target and I had to remove those targets first just to make sure that this target was legitimate. Even after removing those adjacent shallower targets, the dime still had very "iffy" responses but I had both detectors setup well for high conductor target recovery for the soil conditions at this location. Any repeatable very high tone responses were investigated if they appeared to be deep according to the depth indicators and audio quality on both detectors. Both detectors clearly indicated a possible deep high conductor coin from the audio responses and from their target ID tendencies.

 

Thanks Jeff .. Then , to summarize :

5g coin ( conductive metal : silver or copper ) :
- VLF depth :   10"      ( 25cm )
- PI    depth :    13-14" ( 33-35cm )

Which confirms a 30-40% depth improvement for a PI vs a VLF , interesting ... 

Especially with the new Algoforce E1500 and its TID display , which allows selective searches  ..

[Chase Goldman]

6 hours ago, palzynski said:

Thanks Jeff .. Then , to summarize :

5g coin ( conductive metal : silver or copper ) :
- VLF depth :   10"      ( 25cm )
- PI    depth :    13-14" ( 33-35cm )

Which confirms a 30-40% depth improvement for a PI vs a VLF , interesting ... 

Especially with the new Algoforce E1500 and its TID display , which allows selective searches  ..

In moderately mineralized soil.  This PI depth advantage wanes as soil becomes more neutral (less mineralized) as was discussed in the thread.

[Jeff McClendon]

19 hours ago, palzynski said:

Thanks Jeff .. Then , to summarize :

5g coin ( conductive metal : silver or copper ) :
- VLF depth :   10"      ( 25cm )
- PI    depth :    13-14" ( 33-35cm )

Which confirms a 30-40% depth improvement for a PI vs a VLF , interesting ... 

Especially with the new Algoforce E1500 and its TID display , which allows selective searches  ..

For a 5 gram coin target and a recently made good quality SMF VLF with an 11" coil in moderate mineralization or less, I would expect 28 cm/11" for a 2 way hit, with or without proper ID.

For a 5 gram coin target and a PI with an 11" coil or slightly larger in moderate mineralization, I would consider down to 40.5 cm/16" to 46 cm/18" to be a reasonable goal for a decent 2 way hit.

[palzynski]

1 hour ago, Chase Goldman said:

In moderately mineralized soil.  This PI depth advantage wanes as soil becomes more neutral (less mineralized) as was discussed in the thread.

Yes correct I should have said : in moderately mineralized soil 

[phrunt]

3 hours ago, Chase Goldman said:

In moderately mineralized soil.  This PI depth advantage wanes as soil becomes more neutral (less mineralized) as was discussed in the thread.

I hear this all the time, yet I don't agree especially when people state they are equal, as someone that tinkers a bit with mild soil situations all I see is PI goes deeper in very mild soils, noticeably deeper especially on larger targets like coins, on tiny gold PI and VLF are similar in depth but the bigger the target gets and using a coin as an example the PI wins, a coin on edge the VLF may catch up again a bit.  Some VLF's like the Manticore and CTX and gaining ground a bit but they are still not at PI / Mild soil depths.

[palzynski]

2 hours ago, phrunt said:

I hear this all the time, yet I don't agree especially when people state they are equal, as someone that tinkers a bit with mild soil situations all I see is PI goes deeper in very mild soils, noticeably deeper especially on larger targets like coins, on tiny gold PI and VLF are similar in depth but the bigger the target gets and using a coin as an example the PI wins, a coin on edge the VLF may catch up again a bit.  Some VLF's like the Manticore and CTX and gaining ground a bit but they are still not at PI / Mild soil depths.

Chase wanted probably to say that the difference between a VLF and a PI is at a minimum in mild soils .Knowing that this "minimum" difference is still 30-40%  , which is significant 

And if I understand well this difference is greater than 30-40% in high mineralized soils where in a few extreme situations a VLF cant even see a target at the ground surface ..

 

[Chase Goldman]

6 hours ago, phrunt said:

hear this all the time, yet I don't agree especially when people state they are equal, as someone that tinkers a bit with mild soil situations all I see is PI goes deeper in very mild soils, noticeably deeper especially on larger targets like coins, on tiny gold PI and VLF are similar in depth but the bigger the target gets and using a coin as an example the PI wins, a coin on edge the VLF may catch up again a bit.  Some VLF's like the Manticore and CTX and gaining ground a bit but they are still not at PI / Mild soil depths.

Not sure why you disagree with my actual statement, "This PI depth advantage wanes as soil becomes more neutral..."   I never said they were equivalent and I never said the PI doesn't "win", as if that really matters.

3 hours ago, palzynski said:

Chase wanted probably to say that the difference between a VLF and a PI is at a minimum in mild soils .Knowing that this "minimum" difference is still 30-40%  , which is significant 

No, I wanted to say what I did say.  You are simply restating what I said, not making it any more or less correct.  No need to change my words.  

I personally do not agree it is "significant", but why debate that?  There are too many variables involved to make absolute and broad reaching statements to percentages or significance etc.  

I point to what @Steve Herschbach has posted regarding PI depth vs. VLFs in Mild Soils. 

Yes, this is TDI to MXT comparison, but the principles are the same and Steve has reiterated this principle in other posts.  He typically summarizes it as VLF when you can, PI when you must.  The GPX and Axiom do put more power into the ground than the TDI so there will likely be some level of depth gain vs. any deep VLF with an appropriate sized coil.  Therefore, while I acknowledge some depth advantage likely exists with the Axiom or GPX to a VLF, the "significance" of that depth advantage is worthy of debate, but I personally find that a waste of time.  Yes, you can't dig a target you can't hear or see, miss it by a millimeter in depth or coil coverage you miss might as well miss it by mile.  When I detect in hot ground, the PI does come out.  But in mild and sandy soils, I find I am getting all the depth I need from my VLF detectors and have no motivation, other than simple curiosity, to swing my Axiom over the same ground despite the prospect of more incremental (my term) depth.  Separation, discrimination, and soil features such as clay layers that limit overall target depth, etc. are all things that factor into the PI vs. VLF use calculus for mild soil detecting.  Right tool for the job.

Perhaps I get too grumpy with the continuing obsession with absolute detector depth or other performance parameter comparisons and the fallacy that there are absolutes that can be broadly generalized across all situations based on specific tests.  But that's just me.  When I have the rare opportunity to get my detector in the field, I just swing away listen, recover, and learn.  I reserve my testing for simple go, no-go operational checks and checks of various features and filters.  Nothing more, nothing less.  But I'm glad there are intrepid folks here like Jeff, El Nino, palzynski, phrunt and many others who have the wherewithal and patience to do these complex comparison tests and share the results with us - I know many who find this information to be useful.  I do as well, to an extent.  I interpret them for what they are, a specific finding under specific circumstances.  I'm a pragmatist.  The quest for absolute truth, as far as these machines are concerned, eludes me.