Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
CTX and Hot ground
- Thread starter ynpto804
- Start date
Andy Sabisch
Active member
The ground (red clay) north of Atlanta is as bad as it gets around here as those that relics hunt from Kennesaw north to Resaca can attest but it is not as bad as Culpepper, VA. With that said, in doing some hunting this weekend in the Kennesaw area with several detectors including a CTX 3030, it seemed to provide performance on par with the E-Trac . . . . . . FBS detectors do well in this ground (better than most) but the hunters that want to depth use PI's such as the GPX, TDI or Infinium. Today, several deep bullets that the GPX and TDI would hit could not be detected with either the E-Trac or the CTX 3030 despite trying multiple settings and knowing there was a signal in the area (they were marked before digging any of them). But PI's force you to dig more iron than you do with the FBS detectors.
It will be interesting to see if anyone gets some run time in the Virginia soil and reports how it does as there are many relic hunters that would love to get the depth needed to reach the relics with discrimination that a PI can't give.
Andy
It will be interesting to see if anyone gets some run time in the Virginia soil and reports how it does as there are many relic hunters that would love to get the depth needed to reach the relics with discrimination that a PI can't give.
Andy
jtalley007
Active member
So does the ground balance on the 3030 provide any advantage over the etrac in bad soil? If not what purpose does it serve? Thanks
We will be taking one for a test drive Tuesday to a site or two with the dirt equal of Culpeper. My eTrac wouldn't run higher than 15 or so in Auto sens there and bullets were non existing to it, despite having other machines marking locations of good signals. We will see how the CTX does there but I'm not expecting it to be that much greater than the eTrac.
TheMarshall
New member
Daniel Tn said:
*******************************************
Hello there 007.....I've been reading the thread, and comments about the very bad ground etc.
I'm curious that the E-Trac was showing an implied Ground indication of 'auto 15'....but you couldn't detect bullets targets that someone else could....am I interpreting your post correctly?
Did you see the other person recover those targets as proof of their existence and what they were ?????
More important....what pattern etc were you using at the time......
I'm always fascinated by such problems, for it's you guys with the tough situations that really test the machine and our skills
Thanks in anticipation of your help.....Matt......TheMarshall.
p.s. Just arrived back from 5 weeks in Australia and a visit to Minelab re CTX 3030.
earthmansurfer
Active member
Hey Marshal. I would only go so far as to say that the FBS machines contain an element of time domain processing and are still, by all accounts, VLF machines. They are clearly not PI machines imo. Their depth is at the upper range of VLF and operation appears so as well.
I am curious about the manual GB feature and if anyone has found a condition where it actually does make a difference. I'm sure there is a place, but no reports on it yet.
Albert
I am curious about the manual GB feature and if anyone has found a condition where it actually does make a difference. I'm sure there is a place, but no reports on it yet.
Albert
Yes I am certain the targets were bullets...Civil War bullets to be exact. I have a test site loaded with them and they are in some very very harsh dirt...it's where we take machines to play and where we will be going with the CTX tomorrow.
What we do, is take a machine we are very familiar with, and use it as our flagger machine. We will mark off the signals we are pretty confident are bullets...and then test the new machines out on them with various settings and such. Then once satisified that we have exhausted all possible settings on the test machine, we will dig and confirm the target. It is time consuming but we never go down there unless we are planning to spend a little time testing machines.
On the eTrac and how it handled there...it could find the shallower bullets that would ID in the non ferrous range...say the ones that were from 0 to 5-6 inches in depth. Then beyond that, the IDs got iffy and began going down into the iron range until the point that it wouldn't even acknowledge them being there....not even a break in the threshold. Usually those were the 8-12 inch bullets.
I usually ran the eTrac with a program pattern called "extensive nail reject" which basically covered a small portion of the lower right screen. This particular site also has cannonball frags in it, and the stock Relic program would reject those because it had such a wide iron rejection range. I ran it in 2 tone conductive...never had a liking for TTF. And Deep ON...Fast OFF.
In better soil, the eTrac really done well for getting on down there but not in this red dirt stuff. What it needed, was a true motion all metal mode. I was hoping the CTX would have such a mode in it but from what I've read, it does not. The manual GB control may help some...we will see tomorrow I guess. We will have the Deus, CTX, Blisstool, and the T2 will be our flagger machine.
What we do, is take a machine we are very familiar with, and use it as our flagger machine. We will mark off the signals we are pretty confident are bullets...and then test the new machines out on them with various settings and such. Then once satisified that we have exhausted all possible settings on the test machine, we will dig and confirm the target. It is time consuming but we never go down there unless we are planning to spend a little time testing machines.
On the eTrac and how it handled there...it could find the shallower bullets that would ID in the non ferrous range...say the ones that were from 0 to 5-6 inches in depth. Then beyond that, the IDs got iffy and began going down into the iron range until the point that it wouldn't even acknowledge them being there....not even a break in the threshold. Usually those were the 8-12 inch bullets.
I usually ran the eTrac with a program pattern called "extensive nail reject" which basically covered a small portion of the lower right screen. This particular site also has cannonball frags in it, and the stock Relic program would reject those because it had such a wide iron rejection range. I ran it in 2 tone conductive...never had a liking for TTF. And Deep ON...Fast OFF.
In better soil, the eTrac really done well for getting on down there but not in this red dirt stuff. What it needed, was a true motion all metal mode. I was hoping the CTX would have such a mode in it but from what I've read, it does not. The manual GB control may help some...we will see tomorrow I guess. We will have the Deus, CTX, Blisstool, and the T2 will be our flagger machine.
so why not detect in the all metal mode of the CTX how does it do then ? can it get the depth of the others . looks like they are hunting in P,I or all metal so can you also hunt in all metal with the CTX ? is that not the point of the all metal mode , when ground gets really badd hunt in all metal that what i did with the GT
Andy Sabisch
Active member
The issue is not what pattern one is running with the Explorer or E-Trac or really any other VLF-based detector when hunting the red clay sites that are notorious among relic hunters. The area around Culpepper will kill almost any machine other than the PI-based detectors which is why the hunters have moved to them when they get serious. Having hunted with a number of very experienced relic hunters in the area that know their Explorer and E-Trac, bullets much past 6" started to read like iron and past 8" or so woudl be undetectable period - you could play with settings but they were not detectable.
The area that we hunted near Kennesaw (Atlanta) this past weekend is well know among relic hunters as having some of the worst ground in the area which is why there are still relics left after decades of hunters combing the surrounding hills. Here, an E-Trac is doing well hitting a bullet ay 6" and some other detectors are lucky to get one at half that depth. Several manufacturers have come through the area over the years checking the ground out and one actually took a box of the dirt home - that was fun dragging 50 lbs of dirt off the mountain and loading it into their rental car
There are rocks there that if you lay a bullet down and put the rock over it, many detectors lose the signal entirely. Clearly not a spot that is known for being kind to detectors.
We marked targets much the way Daniel land his posse do which is the only way to evaluate a detector's performance where it counts - in the field and on targets that are deep or masked. Coins found at 3" in normal soil tells the person looking at investing close to $3000 very little when it comes to serious performance. The flagger we used was a GPX 4500 which is the Cadillac of detectors in the Atlanta relic hunting circle and as those that attend the DIV events, the machine to watch there as well (and what the successful hunters have come to rely on along with the White's TDI and Garrett Infinium). We didi pull bullets, Williams cleaner bullet inserts, camp lead and a few percussion caps that the E-Trac, CTX-3030 and even the F-75 LTD could not detect which were deep as expected. To be honest, a few of the pieces of camp lead came out from depths close to 8" and even listening to the GPX, not sure I woudl have even known a target was there but that is where knowing your detector comes in. The Ground Balance option did not produce signals on the deeper targets nor did going to Manual and running the sensitivity to max even though it became erratic due to the red clay & hot rocks in the ground and the switchyard in the area (any local hunters have a bead on where we were?
) Sometimes, you simply can't find something that the technology can't reach . . . . . . but the GPX sure can and does so on a regular basis.
The statement that FBS detectors are in fact PI detectors simply does not ring true. PI detectors process signals differently and they are able to handle the ground far better than the FBS or VLF detectors can . . . . there's a reason gold hunters are using GPX 4800 / 5000 detectors rather than an E-Trac.
We are all interested in the results of Daniel's testing in the bad ground to see if the CTX 3030 punches a tad deeper with the added features.
Andy
The area that we hunted near Kennesaw (Atlanta) this past weekend is well know among relic hunters as having some of the worst ground in the area which is why there are still relics left after decades of hunters combing the surrounding hills. Here, an E-Trac is doing well hitting a bullet ay 6" and some other detectors are lucky to get one at half that depth. Several manufacturers have come through the area over the years checking the ground out and one actually took a box of the dirt home - that was fun dragging 50 lbs of dirt off the mountain and loading it into their rental car
There are rocks there that if you lay a bullet down and put the rock over it, many detectors lose the signal entirely. Clearly not a spot that is known for being kind to detectors.We marked targets much the way Daniel land his posse do which is the only way to evaluate a detector's performance where it counts - in the field and on targets that are deep or masked. Coins found at 3" in normal soil tells the person looking at investing close to $3000 very little when it comes to serious performance. The flagger we used was a GPX 4500 which is the Cadillac of detectors in the Atlanta relic hunting circle and as those that attend the DIV events, the machine to watch there as well (and what the successful hunters have come to rely on along with the White's TDI and Garrett Infinium). We didi pull bullets, Williams cleaner bullet inserts, camp lead and a few percussion caps that the E-Trac, CTX-3030 and even the F-75 LTD could not detect which were deep as expected. To be honest, a few of the pieces of camp lead came out from depths close to 8" and even listening to the GPX, not sure I woudl have even known a target was there but that is where knowing your detector comes in. The Ground Balance option did not produce signals on the deeper targets nor did going to Manual and running the sensitivity to max even though it became erratic due to the red clay & hot rocks in the ground and the switchyard in the area (any local hunters have a bead on where we were?
) Sometimes, you simply can't find something that the technology can't reach . . . . . . but the GPX sure can and does so on a regular basis.The statement that FBS detectors are in fact PI detectors simply does not ring true. PI detectors process signals differently and they are able to handle the ground far better than the FBS or VLF detectors can . . . . there's a reason gold hunters are using GPX 4800 / 5000 detectors rather than an E-Trac.
We are all interested in the results of Daniel's testing in the bad ground to see if the CTX 3030 punches a tad deeper with the added features.
Andy
earthmansurfer
Active member
Marshal - I'm open to hearing more about why you think the CTX is a PI machine but a few things don't make sense and I need clarification:
1 - The depth, if the E-Trac, CTX, etc. were PI units I would think they would get much more depth. In particular, one would think that in the time between the E-Trac and the CTX that the CTX would go deeper.
2 - VID numbers - I didn't know PI machines of a few years ago could be so accurate with VID numbers, didn't even think they had VID numbers.
3 - The Coils - I've never heard of PI machines using DD, SEF, etc. coils. I think it might be possible actually but never heard of it.
4 - The power supply - I thought PI machines would draw much more power, but again don't really know much here.
5 - Frequency - It has been measured that the Explorer (I think it was that one) was receiving on two frequencies. The E-Trac appears the same. That is not PI I think.
Now there are many other points to consider, but for years it seems to have been agreed that FBS is a branch off of VLF.
Now there has been the discussion of time domain used when talking about FBS. So I can imagine that there are some nuances of PI, but only in the sense that more time is needed to listen and process relative to a regular VLF machine.
Thanks
Albert
1 - The depth, if the E-Trac, CTX, etc. were PI units I would think they would get much more depth. In particular, one would think that in the time between the E-Trac and the CTX that the CTX would go deeper.
2 - VID numbers - I didn't know PI machines of a few years ago could be so accurate with VID numbers, didn't even think they had VID numbers.
3 - The Coils - I've never heard of PI machines using DD, SEF, etc. coils. I think it might be possible actually but never heard of it.
4 - The power supply - I thought PI machines would draw much more power, but again don't really know much here.
5 - Frequency - It has been measured that the Explorer (I think it was that one) was receiving on two frequencies. The E-Trac appears the same. That is not PI I think.
Now there are many other points to consider, but for years it seems to have been agreed that FBS is a branch off of VLF.
Now there has been the discussion of time domain used when talking about FBS. So I can imagine that there are some nuances of PI, but only in the sense that more time is needed to listen and process relative to a regular VLF machine.
Thanks
Albert
Mach1Pilot
Member
I'm nowhere near as good at Daniel in either running my machine or making a video, but I uploaded my test today to youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPtFzOQpqmw
One thing to note - after I made the video I see that the CTX may have benefited from being in the Gound-Coin seperation mode, but it was raining and almost dark when I figured that out. I did briefly try it with only that change, and it was just barely chirping on the bullet as presented at the end of this video, indicating improved performance. Will go out tomorrow and try that again.
Hope that helps.
One thing to note - after I made the video I see that the CTX may have benefited from being in the Gound-Coin seperation mode, but it was raining and almost dark when I figured that out. I did briefly try it with only that change, and it was just barely chirping on the bullet as presented at the end of this video, indicating improved performance. Will go out tomorrow and try that again.
Hope that helps.
What? Rain? A little rain won't hurt that CTX 3030! 
You may catch a little "disagreement" for having Culpeper dirt in your demonstration, as there is some thought that it is the iron under that dirt in Culpeper County, that makes it very difficult to detect in. Regardless, you have made an effort to provide an "even playing field" between the E-TRAC and CTX 3030. Thanks for taking the time to do so, and to provide video. When the rain stops and you get the opportunity to do this testing again, I have a few requests......Even though the CTX 3030 retains the GB setting when turned off and back on, in highly mineralized soil it is sometimes beneficial to repeat the GB procedure. So after making a few sweeps and determining how deep it hits, could you rebalance it and see if there is an improvement? And, as you said, GB works most effectively when incorporated with Ground - Coin Separation. So I'll be anxious to see if there is any measureable difference in depth, with Ground - Coin enabled. I know it has a positive effect on TID. But I didn't see a huge improvement with depth in my tests. Then, if you have the time, I'd like to see a comparison between the two detectors in Manual Sensitivity. See how high they can be set, without chattering. Might want to do a Noise Cancel on each, first. Thanks again for taking your time to video your comparison.
HH Randy
You may catch a little "disagreement" for having Culpeper dirt in your demonstration, as there is some thought that it is the iron under that dirt in Culpeper County, that makes it very difficult to detect in. Regardless, you have made an effort to provide an "even playing field" between the E-TRAC and CTX 3030. Thanks for taking the time to do so, and to provide video. When the rain stops and you get the opportunity to do this testing again, I have a few requests......Even though the CTX 3030 retains the GB setting when turned off and back on, in highly mineralized soil it is sometimes beneficial to repeat the GB procedure. So after making a few sweeps and determining how deep it hits, could you rebalance it and see if there is an improvement? And, as you said, GB works most effectively when incorporated with Ground - Coin Separation. So I'll be anxious to see if there is any measureable difference in depth, with Ground - Coin enabled. I know it has a positive effect on TID. But I didn't see a huge improvement with depth in my tests. Then, if you have the time, I'd like to see a comparison between the two detectors in Manual Sensitivity. See how high they can be set, without chattering. Might want to do a Noise Cancel on each, first. Thanks again for taking your time to video your comparison.
HH Randy
I like to kibitz as much as the next person but lets get to the straight skinny. The issue at Culpeper and environs is conductivity not mineralization!
At DIV XVIII (I believe it was) Kevin H. from Minelab came and gave a presentation to anyone who wanted to listen but it was geared mainly for the GPX users. He went over GPX setting and then he dropped the bombshell about the conductivity/mineralization issue. Telling everyone that they were over correcting the soil timings and missing a lot of targets. He suggested running in Sharp instead of Fine Gold or Enhanced. Most did and it worked!
If you know the Minelab Soil Timings progression you will note that Sharp is just above Coin and Relic. C&R is the lowest timing for benign ground. Sharp is just above it. Meaning mineralization is low (see graphic below). Mineralization increases left to right in the chart. As the soil timings change to compensate for mineralization depth decreases.
What about VLF detectors at Culpeper! They work fine. The ones that clean up are the MXT, F75 and Sovereign GT but all those machines can be ground balanced and have an all metal mode. They find stuff (as Daniel and others have pointed out) to the 6-8" (depending on size of target) mark then they get iffy. The GPX, I know for a fact, will go 16-19" before you start scratching your head. But everything is predicated to that patch of soil under the coil when you get the signal. I constantly GB my machine.
So, VLF's work at DIV but they have their limitations. The eTrac and I would assume CTX might work if the patch of ground is right. But from listening to folks that have used the eTrac at DIV it doesn't fair to well. Let me tell you why I think that is. VLF machines put out 1 frequency. The eTrac and CTX put out 28 frequencies. The question then becomes which of those 28 frequencies is/are the one/ones being reflected as noise from the soil?
When you ground balance a machine your telling the machine to ignore the noise and give you all the other signals. The only machines that do well at DIV require ground balancing. The machine must have the ability to distinguish any reflected frequency and tune it out.
If you want to get past all those issues you will have to arm yourself with a TDI, Infinium or GPX. When I got my GPX I sold all my TDI's and Infinium stuff to pay for it. I have a new CTX but I am seriously thinking about selling it even though it's not been used yet.
At DIV XVIII (I believe it was) Kevin H. from Minelab came and gave a presentation to anyone who wanted to listen but it was geared mainly for the GPX users. He went over GPX setting and then he dropped the bombshell about the conductivity/mineralization issue. Telling everyone that they were over correcting the soil timings and missing a lot of targets. He suggested running in Sharp instead of Fine Gold or Enhanced. Most did and it worked!
If you know the Minelab Soil Timings progression you will note that Sharp is just above Coin and Relic. C&R is the lowest timing for benign ground. Sharp is just above it. Meaning mineralization is low (see graphic below). Mineralization increases left to right in the chart. As the soil timings change to compensate for mineralization depth decreases.
What about VLF detectors at Culpeper! They work fine. The ones that clean up are the MXT, F75 and Sovereign GT but all those machines can be ground balanced and have an all metal mode. They find stuff (as Daniel and others have pointed out) to the 6-8" (depending on size of target) mark then they get iffy. The GPX, I know for a fact, will go 16-19" before you start scratching your head. But everything is predicated to that patch of soil under the coil when you get the signal. I constantly GB my machine.
So, VLF's work at DIV but they have their limitations. The eTrac and I would assume CTX might work if the patch of ground is right. But from listening to folks that have used the eTrac at DIV it doesn't fair to well. Let me tell you why I think that is. VLF machines put out 1 frequency. The eTrac and CTX put out 28 frequencies. The question then becomes which of those 28 frequencies is/are the one/ones being reflected as noise from the soil?
When you ground balance a machine your telling the machine to ignore the noise and give you all the other signals. The only machines that do well at DIV require ground balancing. The machine must have the ability to distinguish any reflected frequency and tune it out.
If you want to get past all those issues you will have to arm yourself with a TDI, Infinium or GPX. When I got my GPX I sold all my TDI's and Infinium stuff to pay for it. I have a new CTX but I am seriously thinking about selling it even though it's not been used yet.
Mach1Pilot
Member
Thank you for the kind words, Randy.
And Scott - I'm with you... in these soils nothing currently being produced will beat the GPX, which is why I have one. I was just trying to determine if Minelab was able to take the FBS technology to a new level in that soil, and if it was now a viable backup in those conditions. It appears to me there is some slight improvement, which I'm only guessing is due to the ground balancing.
I am going to redo this video today, so I have temporarily taken it down. Hopefully it will be ready by this evening.
And Scott - I'm with you... in these soils nothing currently being produced will beat the GPX, which is why I have one. I was just trying to determine if Minelab was able to take the FBS technology to a new level in that soil, and if it was now a viable backup in those conditions. It appears to me there is some slight improvement, which I'm only guessing is due to the ground balancing.
I am going to redo this video today, so I have temporarily taken it down. Hopefully it will be ready by this evening.