Critterhunter
New member
I just did some more test comparisons of the stock 10" Tornado to the SEF 12x10 and the results look even better for the 12x10! This time I headed off to the woods and chose a spot where there was loamy soil, containing black soil mixed with fine decomposed leaf litter and other stuff, though mostly it was black soil. Not extremely black soil, containing from the looks of it slight clay content, but still much better than the first test done a few days ago that was heavy in lime stone clay. Not only would this spot provide a good comparison of the two coils in low mineral content (as evidenced by both coils being able to run stable at full sensitivity), but the area is devoid of RF activity which would allow both coils to "run free" in terms of what they were able to do without influence from outside forces (EM fields).
I began the test with the 12x10. I buried a silver Rosie dime at a measured 7.5" deep and then packed the soil to mimic as much as possible original ground matrix, though we all know that Minelabs do not like disturbed soil and depths suffer greatly when it has been freshly altered. The soil was damp but not any where near what I would call wet.
I first started off sweeping the 12x10 around the site to insure a clean area where the spot was chosen for the silver dime. As I did this I wanted to see how high the sensitivity could be run. As expected with the soil conditions and lack of EMI or RF interference, full blast manual sensitivity was perfectly stable. I then swept over the dime at full sensitivity and was able to achieve a 181 (silver in the way I tweak the meter) ID and good coin audio.
OK, if this target didn't give me trouble at IDing at a somewhat lower sensitivity setting then I would have to stick it further into the ground to put things right on the edge for comparison to the stock coil. I soon found by ranging up and down the dial that around 1:30PM (just above the "C" in the word Noise Cancel on the face plate) provided the easiest stability of the ID, meaning that it wouldn't try to roam off on me when at rest between short sweeps over the target. I then wanted to see just how low the sensitivity could go before I lost it. At 3PM the target was easily heard, though the ID was roaming in the 140's and 150's, showing that sensitivity was dipping down into too low of an area to be ID'd properly. Good, while I was at it I flipped over to Auto to see what that would do and the target could no longer be heard or any response (even a null) achieved.
Alright, I've got some baselines to judge the 10" Tornado by. I threw that coil on and first swept around the area to see how high sensitivity could go and still remain stable. Full blast sensitivity was also able to be ran with this coil. However, I have found the 12x10, like the 15x12, can be run at higher sensitivity settings at some sites than the stock coil. Just the same, this area would be a good comparison of both coils running all out.
At full blast sensitivity the stock coil could achieve 181 on the target. It might have been a little harder to acquire than the 12x10 at full blast but it was really too close to tell. Ranging the sensitivity down to where I preferred with the 12x10 at 1:30PM would be the true comparison here, and I'm happy to say that the stock coil was having a much harder time to reach 181 despite intense effort with this setting. It's audio also wasn't going "COIN" as much as it tried to get there, but I feel I still would have dug this target with this coil as well. All I can say is that the 12x10 made things easier and with better audio more of the time. The stock coil mainly would range in the 170's and would only go 181 perhaps one out of ten sweeps while the 12x10 was doing a 181 in say 4 or 5 sweeps less time.
Alright, looks like the 12x10 just like the other day is providing easier ID. Let's range sensitivity down to 3PM and see if the stock coil can still at least sound off at that setting like the SEF was able to. Nope! I couldn't get any kind of audio response from the stock coil at this setting, where as the 12x10 was as said sounding off fairly easy and getting into the 140's and 150s. What a contrast! It appears the SEF reaches down further than the 10" coil at the exact same sensitivity setting! That was impressive!
I then threw the 12x10 back on to compare the results one more time to insure things hadn't changed. Once again it was a good bit easier to hit 181 and with better audio while getting there than the stock coil, and once again at 3PM it would at least sound off fairly well to the coin and manage a mid range ID where as the stock coil was silent as a church mouse.
So what can we conclude with this test in low minerals/low RF noise? That the 12x10 is able to achieve hits on targets at a much lower sensitivity setting than the stock coil, and that it once again was able to achieve easier target IDs at a certain setting (1:30PM) than the 10" coil with the same setting. It also illustrates that the 12x10 appears to be hotter (reach deeper) in low minerals, even if both coils would remain stable at full blast sensitivity. This is a good comparison of both coils when related to both tests from the other day in high minerals and today. Obviously due to the better soil with less minerals and RF noise both coils were able to go deeper (7.5"), where as the other day 6" was max target depth for on a freshly buried target in high minerals. So we can probably draw a few conclusions here thus far, although perhaps too early to set in cement....
The 12x10 gets deeper and achieves easier target ID/audio quality in high minerals, and it also appears to get deeper and achieve easier target ID/audio in low minerals as well. Not only that, but even in low minerals it is still reaching further into the ground than the stock coil. If logic follows by both of these contrasts then this coil should provide more depth with less sensitivity required in both high and low minerals, allowing smoother operation via a lower sensitivity setting and yet still reaching further into the ground that the stock 10" Tornado.
Thus far I'd have to say that my theory on this coil soaking in less ground matrix in relation to it's more tight/cleaner/more well defined detection field in the left/right perspective is proving a correction assumption. More testing will need to be done in order to back up these results, and in varying types of grounds to illustrate the constant in performance of both coils in things like high and low minerals, different soil types, and so on. My next test will be both coils in sand at a local fresh water beach which contains fairly high minerals. I also plan to test their response on coins in various stages of being on edge at this location to investigate the differences in that respect.
Hope you enjoyed the results so far. I wish some other people would post some testing comparisons of various coils in such a way as I love to read this sort of stuff. I'd really like to see the S-12 compared to the stock coil and the 12x10. I'll probably be acquiring a broken S-12 shortly and if I do I will be conducting such tests and comparisons for both my curiosity and the reading interests of at least some of you guys.
I'm off to do some hunting today at probably a known deep coin spot. This early initial results of this coil give me added confidence that I'm probably going deeper than anybody ever has at such a site. That kind of thought really inspires me!
I began the test with the 12x10. I buried a silver Rosie dime at a measured 7.5" deep and then packed the soil to mimic as much as possible original ground matrix, though we all know that Minelabs do not like disturbed soil and depths suffer greatly when it has been freshly altered. The soil was damp but not any where near what I would call wet.
I first started off sweeping the 12x10 around the site to insure a clean area where the spot was chosen for the silver dime. As I did this I wanted to see how high the sensitivity could be run. As expected with the soil conditions and lack of EMI or RF interference, full blast manual sensitivity was perfectly stable. I then swept over the dime at full sensitivity and was able to achieve a 181 (silver in the way I tweak the meter) ID and good coin audio.
OK, if this target didn't give me trouble at IDing at a somewhat lower sensitivity setting then I would have to stick it further into the ground to put things right on the edge for comparison to the stock coil. I soon found by ranging up and down the dial that around 1:30PM (just above the "C" in the word Noise Cancel on the face plate) provided the easiest stability of the ID, meaning that it wouldn't try to roam off on me when at rest between short sweeps over the target. I then wanted to see just how low the sensitivity could go before I lost it. At 3PM the target was easily heard, though the ID was roaming in the 140's and 150's, showing that sensitivity was dipping down into too low of an area to be ID'd properly. Good, while I was at it I flipped over to Auto to see what that would do and the target could no longer be heard or any response (even a null) achieved.
Alright, I've got some baselines to judge the 10" Tornado by. I threw that coil on and first swept around the area to see how high sensitivity could go and still remain stable. Full blast sensitivity was also able to be ran with this coil. However, I have found the 12x10, like the 15x12, can be run at higher sensitivity settings at some sites than the stock coil. Just the same, this area would be a good comparison of both coils running all out.
At full blast sensitivity the stock coil could achieve 181 on the target. It might have been a little harder to acquire than the 12x10 at full blast but it was really too close to tell. Ranging the sensitivity down to where I preferred with the 12x10 at 1:30PM would be the true comparison here, and I'm happy to say that the stock coil was having a much harder time to reach 181 despite intense effort with this setting. It's audio also wasn't going "COIN" as much as it tried to get there, but I feel I still would have dug this target with this coil as well. All I can say is that the 12x10 made things easier and with better audio more of the time. The stock coil mainly would range in the 170's and would only go 181 perhaps one out of ten sweeps while the 12x10 was doing a 181 in say 4 or 5 sweeps less time.
Alright, looks like the 12x10 just like the other day is providing easier ID. Let's range sensitivity down to 3PM and see if the stock coil can still at least sound off at that setting like the SEF was able to. Nope! I couldn't get any kind of audio response from the stock coil at this setting, where as the 12x10 was as said sounding off fairly easy and getting into the 140's and 150s. What a contrast! It appears the SEF reaches down further than the 10" coil at the exact same sensitivity setting! That was impressive!
I then threw the 12x10 back on to compare the results one more time to insure things hadn't changed. Once again it was a good bit easier to hit 181 and with better audio while getting there than the stock coil, and once again at 3PM it would at least sound off fairly well to the coin and manage a mid range ID where as the stock coil was silent as a church mouse.
So what can we conclude with this test in low minerals/low RF noise? That the 12x10 is able to achieve hits on targets at a much lower sensitivity setting than the stock coil, and that it once again was able to achieve easier target IDs at a certain setting (1:30PM) than the 10" coil with the same setting. It also illustrates that the 12x10 appears to be hotter (reach deeper) in low minerals, even if both coils would remain stable at full blast sensitivity. This is a good comparison of both coils when related to both tests from the other day in high minerals and today. Obviously due to the better soil with less minerals and RF noise both coils were able to go deeper (7.5"), where as the other day 6" was max target depth for on a freshly buried target in high minerals. So we can probably draw a few conclusions here thus far, although perhaps too early to set in cement....
The 12x10 gets deeper and achieves easier target ID/audio quality in high minerals, and it also appears to get deeper and achieve easier target ID/audio in low minerals as well. Not only that, but even in low minerals it is still reaching further into the ground than the stock coil. If logic follows by both of these contrasts then this coil should provide more depth with less sensitivity required in both high and low minerals, allowing smoother operation via a lower sensitivity setting and yet still reaching further into the ground that the stock 10" Tornado.
Thus far I'd have to say that my theory on this coil soaking in less ground matrix in relation to it's more tight/cleaner/more well defined detection field in the left/right perspective is proving a correction assumption. More testing will need to be done in order to back up these results, and in varying types of grounds to illustrate the constant in performance of both coils in things like high and low minerals, different soil types, and so on. My next test will be both coils in sand at a local fresh water beach which contains fairly high minerals. I also plan to test their response on coins in various stages of being on edge at this location to investigate the differences in that respect.
Hope you enjoyed the results so far. I wish some other people would post some testing comparisons of various coils in such a way as I love to read this sort of stuff. I'd really like to see the S-12 compared to the stock coil and the 12x10. I'll probably be acquiring a broken S-12 shortly and if I do I will be conducting such tests and comparisons for both my curiosity and the reading interests of at least some of you guys.
I'm off to do some hunting today at probably a known deep coin spot. This early initial results of this coil give me added confidence that I'm probably going deeper than anybody ever has at such a site. That kind of thought really inspires me!