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.

FCC restrictions on transmit power.........

JB(MS)

New member
In a post below there was a reference to a 100 milliwatt restriction on the transmit power of metal detectors. At one time that was true, in fact all unlicensed radio transmitters, which includes metal detectors, were restricted to 100 milliwatts output. The text books when I was taking an electronic course in the early 1960's qouted the FCC regulations and made it very plain that to exceed 100 milliwatts would be a violation. But after a discussion a few years ago with Carl Moreland, who has the Geotec forum, both of us went through the FCC regulations and found no reference to a 100 miliwatt restriction. I contacted the FCC and asked where I would find the info and they directed me to Section 15 of the Regulations. According to Section 15 there is no restriction on power output for transmit frequencies below 9 khz. From 9 khz to 90 khz it's it's based on e-field strength at a distance, basically 2400 divided by the frequency.

There's a lot more involved in making a detector go deeper than just the transmit power. The text below is from C-Scope's Plain Truth articles on their website and explains the effect of increasing transmit power, or gain, and why detectors have been restricted to pretty much the same depth levels for years, and also why we keep getting new models with more bells and whistles but no improvement in performance. The links are to other articles on their website that are also interesting reading.

<i><b>"It is in the fundamentals of electromagnetics where the laws of physics establish limits which cannot be exceeded. Metal detector R&D engineers all understand these laws very well and they all have to develop their detectors within the same constraints. To demonstrate the point furher.......it is possible to put the cheapest metal detector in a controlled laboratory situation and you can tune it to detect a coin in air at one metre! However, if you take that machine outside and try to use it on the ground it is absolutely useless and won't detect a thing. This is because the huge amount of energy in the search coil is simply detecting the ground<p>Doubling the gain of the detector doesn't give you twice the depth but it does give twice the ground signal! (The magnetic field from the transmit coil to the target diminishes as a cube law. This magnetic field induces circulating eddy currents in the target and these eddy currents produce an opposing magnetic field, which also diminishes as a cube law. It is these which are detected by the receive coil. - So we are talking of a 6th power law of signal against distance (3rd power out and 3rd power back) . So to double the depth of detection requires a transmit current (or receive gain) increase of 2 to the power 6 (that's 64 times as much!). Resonating the receive coil gives free gain and a filtering , but requires more stringent temperature drift measures ". <p>This also explains why you cannot get more depth out of a metal detector. Any detector manufacturer who tells you that they have a new development which gives dramatic increase in depth has to be treated with a lot of suspicion. You CANNOT get around the laws of physics!"</b></i><br><center><font face="Verdana" color="#000099"><img src="http://www.cscope.co.uk/metdet/newsiteimages/TitlePlainTruth.jpg"> <br><b>OPERATING FREQUENCY<br><b>SENSITIVITY <br><b>DISCRIMINATION <br><b>GROUND EFFECT</b></center><br>
 
But does this mean that certain adds are not telling the truth regarding their "new" detector and the depth they can reach! Oh my...how can this be!
Thanks for clearing this up. I had gotten an explanation regarding the output and it was mentioned that the old limit no longer existed and that was why the "new" detector had better depth than all the others.
Pap
 
Thanks for correcting me, JB.
It's good that you posted the proper information.

So I guess scorching the earth and microwaving the earthworms al frescoe just won't get me better signals on the RX side of things...

It's most likely that fcc has regulated at practical limits...
I wonder what it is that the Navy is using at sea that is so powerful people are claiming it hurts the whales quite a bit???
No clue either way, just heard about it in passing.

rmptr
 
I to have been on the Geotic forum,those guys are way out of my league as far as electronics are involved. They have posted some interesting schematics concerning the euro super Cibola u-max mods. Would basically turn it into a Tejon,would be fun to try.If you didn't mind taking your Cibola apart knowing factory won't help you any more but if it increases the power that much it would be a awesome machine! They also build there own coils that are supposed to be allot better than factory ones. I might have to consider these mods, would be cool to have a hotrod detector that know one else has!--Kurt
 
I think the ads might stretch things just a tad:). Every new model Charlie Garrett has released since the Garrett BFO I had in the early 1970's has been advertised as having 20% more depth than the previous model. That BFO would get a quarter about 5 inches deep in my mild ground, if his depth claims were accurate his current top model should get one at least 20 inches deep:). George Payne pretty well hit the depth limit for VLF detectors back in the 1980's with his Teknetics ST, in fact Troy Galloway told me on the phone he used the ST as the standard for depth when designing the X5. Pulse detectors handle ground conditions better than VLF's, and are capable of more depth, but so far a workable discrimination hasn't been developed for them. Garretts Infinium has a rudimentary type of discrimination based on high versus low tones, as does the Goldmax. White's is supposed to release a Eric Foster designed pulse unit that has some form of discrimination and Dave Emery has been working on the Pulse Devil for several years. Dave has been saying for the last couple of years he has developed a true discrimination circuit and it's almost ready to be released but haven't heard anything about it lately. Personally, I would rather have a detector that could see through iron and get coins down to 8 inches or so than have one that would get a coin at two feet deep anyway.
 
You're right, some of those guys on Carl's Geotec forum are sharp. I built a couple of coils way back, including an 18 inch coil for a BFO that would find a coke can sized target at two feet but wouldn't detect a coin lying on top of the ground, but about the only modifications I've done to detectors is adding manual ground balance to a couple. Hands are too arthritic to do the kind of precision soldering that's required on the current detectors. Getting old sucks:(.
 
Lawrence Livermore Lab developed a detector for the military based on ground penetrating radar a few years ago that would be interesting to see in use. It had a rectangular coil, computer circuitry and headband type thing with a monitor for one eye. Supposedly it showed a 3D type image of anything under the coil down to a depth of about two feet. It was developed to detect non metallic land mines but could be used for general detecting, would probably cost $20,000 or more though. Wouldn't want one that actually showed what the target was before digging it, don't really care for meters for the same reason. Guess I'm an old fogey but I still get a thrill when I dig a hole and see a good find:)..
 
Me too JB, I find more stuff in and around iron trash than I do anywhere else and it seems when I find another place to detect, there is just as much iron if not more. I would pay good money for a VLF that has the 100 KHZ TR see thru ability, so far none exist.
 
Top