Disc/Depth

[sgoss66]

Sube --

I care! Understanding how the CTX works is, for my type of brain, the way I'm going to understand how to set up and run the machine. The questions I am asking have real implications, for me. Different people, with different types of minds, learn -- and process -- in different ways. I know "my" way is different from many. Many folks say I "major too much in the minors" or "make everything more difficult than it has to be." I get that -- I know that's how my style of analyzing appears, to others. That's OK. It's not something that can be changed! It has a lot to do with why I ended up in the sciences, for a career. It's simply the way I'm wired, sube!

Steve

 

[sube]

Steve I gave up along time ago on why and how I ran into to many brickwalls and dead ends to many times so I just try to understand what it dose .I see said sube were all wired different that's a good thing . sube

 

[sgoss66]

Understood. There are definitely many brick walls, but my analytical brain won't give up until I can understand as much as is possible...LOL! It's just the way it is, for me. I'm quirky that way, and always have been. Just ask my wife! LOL!

Steve

 

[IDXMonster]

I want to understand how it works to the point at which the information is correct and testable. As soon as guessing kicks in...I’m out.
I absolutely WILL run 50 tone when looking for anything BUT silver coins. Even though I like the audio of the Explorer the best,the CTX is still pretty good to my brain.
As long as what we’re all doing produces the results we want,I don’t think there is a wrong way... but perhaps a better way to some extent at times.

 

[Champ Ferguson]

Yeah IDX, that's one of the beauties of the CTX; there are just so many things you can tweek to help you get it to the way you like to hunt.
sube, I certainly understand personal preference and where you are coming from. And success speaks for itself.
Steve, I think we are alike in our curiosity and wanting to understand. I like lots of info and believe that the more I understand, the better I can be.

Whatever works for you is the Right Answer. And even if it doesn't work but you are happy, then that's a win too.

 

[cjc]

Steve I'll say this. It's true--the actual discriminate part of the CTX's process is the very last part of what's taking place--stage 5 and proportional to that ratio. But the existence of a small "firewall" line (s) of reject act to separate the signals focus from the ground--eliminating some noise and allowing smoother operation. It's not fair that you seize on the pulse comparison Im using for your sake--for explanation purposes. No, this is not true "signal balancing" but it is an effective approximation that will allow you to get more depth from the CTX--certainly more than ignoring the conditions and flicking the Auto switch. You could say that this approximation is taking place last stage--a simple audio clean up. This in and of itself allows more Sensitivity to be used. Didn't come to me in a dream--it works--instead of arguing theory--try it your self. I'm afraid Im done with the "straw man" thing for now. Just gives people the opportunity to dismiss my book "by it's cover" based upon half-baked arguments
cjc

 

[cjc]

Steve I'll say this. It's true--the actual discriminate part of the CTX's process is the very last part of what's taking place--stage 5 and proportional to that ratio. But the existence of a small "firewall" line (s) of reject act to separate the signals focus from the ground--eliminating some noise and allowing smoother operation. It's not fair that you seize on the pulse comparison Im using for your sake--for explanation purposes. No, this is not true "signal balancing" but it is an effective approximation that will allow you to get more depth from the CTX--certainly more than ignoring the conditions and flicking the Auto switch. You could say that this approximation is taking place last stage--a simple audio clean up. This in and of itself allows more Sensitivity to be used. . Didn't come to me in a dream--it works--instead of arguing theory--try it your self. I'm afraid Im done with the "straw man" thing for now. Just gives people the opportunity to dismiss my book "by it's cover" based upon half-baked arguments. My book does not derive from theory.

cjc

 

[cjc]

go hunt--more to be learned that way that arguing online.
cjc

 

[sgoss66]

Clive --

Thank you for your reply.

I apologize that you feel I am "arguing" with you. I tried to tell you in my post that this is the farthest thing from what I'm trying to do. The way I understand things is to pick apart details, until it's clear in my mind. And when I run into someone who clearly has more knowledge and experience than I do, I try to "pick" their brain, when the opportunity presents.

So, again, your words of "not fair" and "arguing" -- I think you misunderstand what I'm trying to do here. NOT "argue with you," but understand better. The old "iron sharpens iron" idea.

In your last response to me, I actually understand better now. The pulse achine "signal balancing" comparison/example is more for "illustrative" purposes than technical ones. And that a "firewall" of signal rejection between ground, and good target, is a far BETTER way to "smooth out your machine" as opposed to switching to Auto sensitivity in order to smooth the machine/achieve stability. That makes total sense. And then yes, with the reduction of ground noise BY DISCRIMINATING IT, I can now see that yes, this means you could raise sensitivity and not suffer from additional noise -- because you've DISCRIMINATED that noise.

So, you actually have cleared this up for me. That was what I was hoping for, in the first place -- and was the reason I pressed with additional questions. I knew if I asked enough questions, and if you were patient enough to persist THROUGH them, that the answer would emerge. And it did. So I thank you, and I apologize if you think I was trying to challenge you in an "argumentative way."

And by the way, as I said, I WILL be buying books from you...

Steve

 

[stephenscool]

From what I understand the more discrimination the quieter the detector allowing a higher sensitivity... but a much slower methodical sweep is needed. I will give it a go next time... will be interesting to see if the numbers still flop around like a wet fish on a target

 

[IDXMonster]

From what I understand the more discrimination the quieter the detector allowing a higher sensitivity... but a much slower methodical sweep is needed. I will give it a go next time... will be interesting to see if the numbers still flop around like a wet fish on a target

Bingo

 

[stephenscool]

I suppose the real question is will a target on the edges or in the discriminated section give a signal that flip flops around or will it remain silent ? Will a target in the accepted area flop around but still give an inconsistent dig signal? Food beach setting if it will. Any target that gives even a fraction of a second good signal is a dig. ... everything else pass over. Or would a target in the rejected area still flop around with the occasional blip in the accepted area

 

[IDXMonster]

That’s where you will have to decide what Sensitivity to run at the location you are. A terribly unstable machine is useless,as it not only can’t process out the interference but it also can’t give you a halfway reliable indication on a good target. This is where the lines blur...I preach STABILITY,others say to wind it up. When the interference and good targets all become intermingled,you as an operator don’t know what’s going on. This is the point at which you decide what to do...and that is to turn back the Sensitivity until you have a machine that is relaying interpretable information. Depth can’t be a primary concern if you don’t have reliable info,at that point NOTHING at ANY depth is making sense.
Targets can pop around on the screen as sensitivity increases,and again...you’ll have to find that happy medium that works for your sites so desirable targets don’t fall outside of your discrimination on a regular basis.
Generally speaking, I would rest the coil on the ground and turn up the sensitivity until it starts producing false numbers dancing around on the screen and audibly falsing. Then turn it down JUST until it doesn’t do that for 5 seconds straight. See if you can make that work...
Good luck man,you’ll get it tamed. It just takes a bit of time when the conditions are tough.

 

[stephenscool]

Great thanks

 

[Architex]

Wow. One little question, whole lot of learning.

 

[TrpnBils]

That is true on all other discriminating VLF detectors, it is not true on FBS.

regular detectors show target's VDIs getting worse and worse as depth increases until it only sees it as iron, then nothing at all. This is why they say you "lose depth" as you increase disc.

I have never seen this happen with either the E-Trac or CTX I have owned. the FE side of the scale may increase a little but you always still have the same area of CO response. Once a conductive target is at the very threshold of detection depth you get a CO response with an iron "thunk" instantly after.

Jason - is the "thunk" also heard on the 3030? I was used to it on my Etrac, but thought that was one of the things that was "fixed" (like the silver warble) on the 3030 that everybody wished was still there.

 

[Jason in Enid]

Jason - is the "thunk" also heard on the 3030? I was used to it on my Etrac, but thought that was one of the things that was "fixed" (like the silver warble) on the 3030 that everybody wished was still there.

Yeah, its still there but it has a tighter range. You have to be truly on the very edge of detection depth. Now, I don't know what situations affect this more/less because I typically always run combined. Somthing like conductive tones might not do it.