samclemmons
New member
I saw this on another board and thought I'd share. Anyone care to discuss the merit of this gentleman's gas?
"I don't want to burst anybody's bubble, but there is no detector in the world that goes "deeper in the ground than it does in air". Even the Mighty Nexus was found to be incapable of this feat during a test at Gary's in the UK against several other detectors.. Minelabs are included in this lot too.
My Sov Elite gets about 1/2" better than [A-N-Y] Explorer in the world if there have been no modifications done to them, and the Sov GT does the same because it and the Elite have the same circuitry but different controls, but none of the multi-freqs have superior air OR ground depth over other detectors running with a single VLF frequency. The many programs and constantly changing different frequencies found on the Explorers limit the depth capabilities. A quality upper-end priced single freq detector will ALWAYS obtain a little bit better depth than a quality upper-end multi-freq currently made, or made within the last 8 years. *The constant frequency changing with the Explorers is more pronounced and power-robbing than on the Sovs, and that is why the Sovs are able to run with higher gain (Power) and to obtain a little bit better depth.
In the words of many well-noted detector engineers we all know; "there is no possibility that a detector can get better depth in the ground than it does in the air". "It is impossible"..
If iron is buried for a few years, it becomes oxidized and therefore combines (covalently) with other minerals in the soil and that too becomes oxidized, thereby making a "halo effect", or so it is called. Still, the detector does not "detect deeper in the ground" because the detector is reading the ghost or halo, or oxidized material surrounding the target, and not just the piece of iron. Iron is the ONLY metal known to have this capacity to bond with other minerals in the ground this much or this dramaticaly. Gold basically has absolutely zero bleed-off unlike the characteristics of iron, and only copper and brass and other semi-precious metals can do this (extremely) marginally, at best. Detectors DO NOT have the capacity or the innate ablity to read such infinitisimal amounts of bonding such as this, so the discussion becomes not only moot in value, it also becomes basically worthless to even mention.
You will not be able to get better depth in the ground than your detector reads in the air. It is chemically, physically, and electronically impossible. Who ever said that a Minelab vlf or multi actually got super depth anyway? Not me, and not three other detectors I own that in real life beat Minelab vlf's and multi's by around 1" in almost all cases, and even up to 2" in a few others. If you doubt this, then go try a stock Tejon in medium to mild soil, and then try to match a Sov or an Expl against it. You will be so disenchanted with the Minelabs that you may have nothing but disgust in your eyes or toss it on the ground as a friend of mine did. Most Minelabs do run very smoothly in high salt/high mineralized soil though, but they cannot "go deeper in the ground", unless they are PI's.
Yeah, I know this sounds brutal, but it's the truth.
******************
Hey xxx, naah, I don't worry about the Minelab boys at all. Besides that I own and use one too, and it like all other detectors has it's place..
I'm used to their fussing and frustration, especially when I use my ancient modified by (Yours Truly) Compass Scanner R&C to show them how it's all done in a park or on the seashore somewhere. Boy you should see the looks on their faces too! There is nothing I like better than to spank Minelab and Garrett owners right there in front of their friends now and then. Fishers too, and so on... How embarrassing. Sovs and Explorers both have such slow processors that they actually miss targets if scanning too fast. Not good. Not at all.
BTW, a Tesoro Lobo Super Traq is one of the deepest detectors ever made for highly mineralized ground. But Joe you already know that, and you know why too. That puppy works ANWHERE and very well too.
Even my 4 year old cz-70 works better than an Explorer or a Sov, etc. in bad ground and even better on the salt beaches, and in good ground the Tejon beats them like a freckle-faced red-headed stepchild with a bunch of ugly warts on it's face. Again though, the Minelabs do work very smoothly on salt beaches, and that is their best attribute.
I often wonder why the words of Keith Wills seem to echo my words about hype vs hope when it comes to Minelabs in general, and some people's odd claims about them. Keith knows more about detectors than 350 of the average detectorist I've ever met, and I trust his words a bit better than the average Minelab owner for sure... .
As you well know xxx, I don't put my opinions on here, I tell it as it is, and have no brand preference either. Some things work well, and some don't, no matter which way it's sliced or how we go or who made it. .
After repairing more detectors in even as little as one week's time than the average detectorist handles in his or her lifetime, I don't stutter when I make statements like the above, and I can back up my claims with the words of the Masters, such as the "Main Man" George ("The Truth") Payne, Jack Gifford, Keith Wills, and the man responsible for Minelabs even ever being in existence, he being none other than Erik Foster, the King of ALL PI's and their beginnings, and including the vlf British and Australian machines too.
I would post their sites and words again so that all could do the reading, but it's not my job, as I've told a few individuals. All I can do is to lead the horse to water, and they can do the drinking by themselves. One person in particular though, asks me every question in the book, instead of doing the research, and many more just are a bit too relaxed to do their own homework at all..
There is an odd mixture here, no?
Neal
"I don't want to burst anybody's bubble, but there is no detector in the world that goes "deeper in the ground than it does in air". Even the Mighty Nexus was found to be incapable of this feat during a test at Gary's in the UK against several other detectors.. Minelabs are included in this lot too.
My Sov Elite gets about 1/2" better than [A-N-Y] Explorer in the world if there have been no modifications done to them, and the Sov GT does the same because it and the Elite have the same circuitry but different controls, but none of the multi-freqs have superior air OR ground depth over other detectors running with a single VLF frequency. The many programs and constantly changing different frequencies found on the Explorers limit the depth capabilities. A quality upper-end priced single freq detector will ALWAYS obtain a little bit better depth than a quality upper-end multi-freq currently made, or made within the last 8 years. *The constant frequency changing with the Explorers is more pronounced and power-robbing than on the Sovs, and that is why the Sovs are able to run with higher gain (Power) and to obtain a little bit better depth.
In the words of many well-noted detector engineers we all know; "there is no possibility that a detector can get better depth in the ground than it does in the air". "It is impossible"..
If iron is buried for a few years, it becomes oxidized and therefore combines (covalently) with other minerals in the soil and that too becomes oxidized, thereby making a "halo effect", or so it is called. Still, the detector does not "detect deeper in the ground" because the detector is reading the ghost or halo, or oxidized material surrounding the target, and not just the piece of iron. Iron is the ONLY metal known to have this capacity to bond with other minerals in the ground this much or this dramaticaly. Gold basically has absolutely zero bleed-off unlike the characteristics of iron, and only copper and brass and other semi-precious metals can do this (extremely) marginally, at best. Detectors DO NOT have the capacity or the innate ablity to read such infinitisimal amounts of bonding such as this, so the discussion becomes not only moot in value, it also becomes basically worthless to even mention.
You will not be able to get better depth in the ground than your detector reads in the air. It is chemically, physically, and electronically impossible. Who ever said that a Minelab vlf or multi actually got super depth anyway? Not me, and not three other detectors I own that in real life beat Minelab vlf's and multi's by around 1" in almost all cases, and even up to 2" in a few others. If you doubt this, then go try a stock Tejon in medium to mild soil, and then try to match a Sov or an Expl against it. You will be so disenchanted with the Minelabs that you may have nothing but disgust in your eyes or toss it on the ground as a friend of mine did. Most Minelabs do run very smoothly in high salt/high mineralized soil though, but they cannot "go deeper in the ground", unless they are PI's.
Yeah, I know this sounds brutal, but it's the truth.
******************
Hey xxx, naah, I don't worry about the Minelab boys at all. Besides that I own and use one too, and it like all other detectors has it's place..
I'm used to their fussing and frustration, especially when I use my ancient modified by (Yours Truly) Compass Scanner R&C to show them how it's all done in a park or on the seashore somewhere. Boy you should see the looks on their faces too! There is nothing I like better than to spank Minelab and Garrett owners right there in front of their friends now and then. Fishers too, and so on... How embarrassing. Sovs and Explorers both have such slow processors that they actually miss targets if scanning too fast. Not good. Not at all.
BTW, a Tesoro Lobo Super Traq is one of the deepest detectors ever made for highly mineralized ground. But Joe you already know that, and you know why too. That puppy works ANWHERE and very well too.
Even my 4 year old cz-70 works better than an Explorer or a Sov, etc. in bad ground and even better on the salt beaches, and in good ground the Tejon beats them like a freckle-faced red-headed stepchild with a bunch of ugly warts on it's face. Again though, the Minelabs do work very smoothly on salt beaches, and that is their best attribute.
I often wonder why the words of Keith Wills seem to echo my words about hype vs hope when it comes to Minelabs in general, and some people's odd claims about them. Keith knows more about detectors than 350 of the average detectorist I've ever met, and I trust his words a bit better than the average Minelab owner for sure... .
As you well know xxx, I don't put my opinions on here, I tell it as it is, and have no brand preference either. Some things work well, and some don't, no matter which way it's sliced or how we go or who made it. .
After repairing more detectors in even as little as one week's time than the average detectorist handles in his or her lifetime, I don't stutter when I make statements like the above, and I can back up my claims with the words of the Masters, such as the "Main Man" George ("The Truth") Payne, Jack Gifford, Keith Wills, and the man responsible for Minelabs even ever being in existence, he being none other than Erik Foster, the King of ALL PI's and their beginnings, and including the vlf British and Australian machines too.
I would post their sites and words again so that all could do the reading, but it's not my job, as I've told a few individuals. All I can do is to lead the horse to water, and they can do the drinking by themselves. One person in particular though, asks me every question in the book, instead of doing the research, and many more just are a bit too relaxed to do their own homework at all..
There is an odd mixture here, no?
Neal
) one shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. As there are unexplained facts still in evidence, then another line of thinking needs to be engaged.