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.
Ferrous number reliability
- Thread starter Mike MD
- Start date
Larry (IL)
Well-known member
That is a problem with ALL TID machines, accurate TID info starts to become less reliable as target depth increases and a lot of other things can affect what numbers show up on the screen. Although the CTX is the most accurate of the detectors I have used, I still don't pay a lot of attention to the numbers, if they are in the ballpark, I dig'em.
Chris(SoCenWI)
Well-known member
Hey Mike,
The explorer series detectors before the Etrac didn't try to stuff all the ferrous numbers into a single value. I still have no idea what they did this.
On the older machines there was a "Ideal" spot where shallow and/or unmasked coins would hit consistently and a seasoned user could easily tell a quarter from dime from nickel from a copper cent from a zinc cent from an indian head just by a quick glance at the screen. Once stuff got deeper or in trash the signal would bounce around more; the ferrous number was wobblier than the conductive, but the "ideal" ferrous numbers varied along with the conductive and there was much more information to be gleaned from the screen. Circling and sweeping over the target and watching the bounce was what most of us used to discern whether to dig or not. Mike Moutray posted diagrams of the bounce pattern for most US coins many, many years ago.
I have also seen the FE bounce on the CTX, but not in any way that I have found useful. (Other than to tell you it is not getting an "ideal" signal).
On the Etrac and CTX pretty much every target from tinfoil to tabs to treasure..... everything except iron has the "ideal" spot FE number at 12, so essentially the FE number tells you absolutely nothing and there is little reason to have a 2 axis screen.
I'm still hoping Minelab will at least offer a software update that will allow the machine to display targets the way it used to. I think the target trace would be much more useful with the old style screen.
Chris
The explorer series detectors before the Etrac didn't try to stuff all the ferrous numbers into a single value. I still have no idea what they did this.
On the older machines there was a "Ideal" spot where shallow and/or unmasked coins would hit consistently and a seasoned user could easily tell a quarter from dime from nickel from a copper cent from a zinc cent from an indian head just by a quick glance at the screen. Once stuff got deeper or in trash the signal would bounce around more; the ferrous number was wobblier than the conductive, but the "ideal" ferrous numbers varied along with the conductive and there was much more information to be gleaned from the screen. Circling and sweeping over the target and watching the bounce was what most of us used to discern whether to dig or not. Mike Moutray posted diagrams of the bounce pattern for most US coins many, many years ago.
I have also seen the FE bounce on the CTX, but not in any way that I have found useful. (Other than to tell you it is not getting an "ideal" signal).
On the Etrac and CTX pretty much every target from tinfoil to tabs to treasure..... everything except iron has the "ideal" spot FE number at 12, so essentially the FE number tells you absolutely nothing and there is little reason to have a 2 axis screen.
I'm still hoping Minelab will at least offer a software update that will allow the machine to display targets the way it used to. I think the target trace would be much more useful with the old style screen.
Chris
AngelicStorm
New member
Chris(SoCenWI) said:
You forgot that iron falsing can produce on the FE 12 line.
Mike I have also noticed the same thing when using Ground-Coin. Those higher FE numbers seem to produce if they are in the right zone and stay consistent. Even slight hints have lead to results for me. That is when using the Previous Mode feature to switch back to a High-Trash mode most of the time.
Southwind
Well-known member
OK, I've got to say this idea that people only recover targets that have a FE of 12 sounds like what beep-n-dig fans try and claim. Now who honestly recovers targets that only have a 12 FE? That is just silly. In my case I couldn't tell you what most of the targets FE number was. Don't look at it much or recover by it.
Good information on this post.
I found the significant bounce of the FE numbers on deeper targets interesting. I think I'll post a question about this myself. I've read some about on this forum before, but maybe I can get the information I'm looking for all in one place.
I've also wondered about the wisdom of trying to condense everything to the FE 12 line, but thought maybe I was missing some important point. It seemed to me that if more targets generally located themselves to different parts of the screen, that would be much more informative. If I remember correctly, (and I may not) I read somewhere that nickel has some ferrous properties to it. If so, that might put them lower down on the screen, and away from all that aluminum trash. On the other hand, whatever ferrous properties nickel might have isn't something that a metal detector reads, and it would make no difference. From Chris' post, I gather that it does.
I'm new to metal detecting, and the CTX is my first machine. I like it. Still it has crossed my mind several times that it might be better if the signals were spread out across the screen more.
But, if minelab thought that the FE 12 line was a good idea, it still makes me think I'm missing something.
I found the significant bounce of the FE numbers on deeper targets interesting. I think I'll post a question about this myself. I've read some about on this forum before, but maybe I can get the information I'm looking for all in one place.
I've also wondered about the wisdom of trying to condense everything to the FE 12 line, but thought maybe I was missing some important point. It seemed to me that if more targets generally located themselves to different parts of the screen, that would be much more informative. If I remember correctly, (and I may not) I read somewhere that nickel has some ferrous properties to it. If so, that might put them lower down on the screen, and away from all that aluminum trash. On the other hand, whatever ferrous properties nickel might have isn't something that a metal detector reads, and it would make no difference. From Chris' post, I gather that it does.
I'm new to metal detecting, and the CTX is my first machine. I like it. Still it has crossed my mind several times that it might be better if the signals were spread out across the screen more.
But, if minelab thought that the FE 12 line was a good idea, it still makes me think I'm missing something.
[AUDIO is what you should pay attention to] , if it sounds good then check the #s , if the conduct #s are in the ball park and the [ signal stays where you pinpoint ] I will dig , ferrous #s are not as reliable as conduct they can fall all over the place depending on what is with the coin . As far as the 12 line it just makes it easier to understand the machine . The ctx is a lot easier to use than the explorers .I don't use my explorer 2 anymore and can say I don't miss it . sube
HH RandyI do still rely almost completely on the visual and the TID. I just haven't heard many clues in the audio. But, I mainly use combined, maybe that's why. When things thaw out, I'm going to make it a point to listen to the audio more.
As for the FE 12 line, I can see pluses and minuses for it. As I think about the pluses, I feel a little more confident that minelab may have done a good thing.
Sube, it's interesting to note that you prefer the way the ctx works over the explorer. Anyway, I'm getting more satisfied with the FE 12 line thing.
As for the FE 12 line, I can see pluses and minuses for it. As I think about the pluses, I feel a little more confident that minelab may have done a good thing.
Sube, it's interesting to note that you prefer the way the ctx works over the explorer. Anyway, I'm getting more satisfied with the FE 12 line thing.
Do you mean you don't like the balance on the ctx? The ctx is my first machine, so I don't have anything to compare it to. When I first started swinging it, my arm was tired in 5 minutes, and my shoulder a little sore in 10. Took me about 3 weeks to be able to go for a couple of hours. But there were lots of breaks digging holes of course. In fact that's my biggest problem now, the getting up and down. I'm afraid I tend to pass on something that I think is trash without checking it out well enough.
Johnnyanglo
Active member
I would certainly dig a 12Fe target but that isn't the end of it. The higher the Fe value the less likely it is worth digging, until the Fe value rises above ~26Fe, then the effort-to-reward ratio is usually too high to bother. Other factors are Co stability - holds tight, higher probability it needs digging.
I would recommend digging a few deeper fringe targets that meet those requirements now-and-again while hunting just to double-check their identity. As each detecting area's soil is slightly different in its mineralization/iron content/moisture which leads to variations in response.
Or, you can just dig along the 12Fe line and miss everything else (which is probably where 85% of the other good targets reside. No worries - someone else willing to do the extra digging work will get the goods).
Johnnyanglo
I would recommend digging a few deeper fringe targets that meet those requirements now-and-again while hunting just to double-check their identity. As each detecting area's soil is slightly different in its mineralization/iron content/moisture which leads to variations in response.
Or, you can just dig along the 12Fe line and miss everything else (which is probably where 85% of the other good targets reside. No worries - someone else willing to do the extra digging work will get the goods).
Johnnyanglo
I wasn't talking about weight or balance. Although heavier than most detectors, it is much better balanced than the Explorer or ETRAC. I was addressing the comment of changing the FE numbering system similar to what they were on the Explorer series. More useful target info, in my opinion. HH Randy
I like the old Explorer screen much better also. Silver high right, nickels bottom center, it was great .Many didn't like the jumping cursor but I looked at it as added information..... Its like asking someone a difficult question that they are not sure of the answer...would you rather have the Explorer way "I'm not sure it may be this or it might be this" or the Etrac/CTX way of looking you square in the eye & say "Its good dig it". even if its wrong..... The jumping cursor is a lie detector.... Ive given up on getting the old way back but would certainly welcome it....wildherre
I suppose this subject has been beaten to death since the ctx came out.
I don't think I will ever be able to make a complete decision about the FE 12 line because I don't have anything to compare it to. I think of pluses and minuses. I think a little more, and it seems that one of the pluses may not be as much of a plus as I first thought. I think a little more and I think of another plus, or another minus.
Someone mentioned Andy Sabisch's book on the explorer and e-trac. Andy was only able to devote one page to the fe 12 line, and it did confirm one of the pluses that I had thought of. But it also mentions something I hadn't though of. More stable and consistent readings in the ground. (Although it does this by putting many things on the fe 12 line.) I take that as meaning repeatability where the ctx will more often put a quarter in the 'sweet spot' for a quarter.
The numbers I use here are just for the purposes of an example.
Say the explorer put a quarter in the sweet spot 70% of the time, and 30% of the time it was somewhere else. In that 30% of the time, the fe number might be bouncing, or it might be showing right where trash would be. Making the detectorist think he had trash and he bypassed the quarter.
Now, lets say that the ctx puts a quarter in the sweet spot 90% of the time. There's only a 10% chance the detectorist might miss a quarter because he thinks it's trash. That's much better. Or one would think so.
This also has it's problems. Scrunching that quarter, or any good item, up onto the fe 12 line might put it right where trash items read. Making it more difficult to determine if it's trash or is it good. Also, scrunching everything on the fe 12 line, to some extent, takes away the ability of the seasoned detectorist to use his skills in determining whether the item is good or bad.
I suppose it's possible that the fe 12 line is a benefit to us less skilled, and a bit of a detriment to those who are more skilled. But, I can also see where the fe 12 line can be a benefit to those more skilled. They just have to learn new tricks. They now have to press their skills to look for even smaller differences in the audio and visual clues to be able to make that final decision good or bad.
Just some thoughts,
Harry
I don't think I will ever be able to make a complete decision about the FE 12 line because I don't have anything to compare it to. I think of pluses and minuses. I think a little more, and it seems that one of the pluses may not be as much of a plus as I first thought. I think a little more and I think of another plus, or another minus.
Someone mentioned Andy Sabisch's book on the explorer and e-trac. Andy was only able to devote one page to the fe 12 line, and it did confirm one of the pluses that I had thought of. But it also mentions something I hadn't though of. More stable and consistent readings in the ground. (Although it does this by putting many things on the fe 12 line.) I take that as meaning repeatability where the ctx will more often put a quarter in the 'sweet spot' for a quarter.
The numbers I use here are just for the purposes of an example.
Say the explorer put a quarter in the sweet spot 70% of the time, and 30% of the time it was somewhere else. In that 30% of the time, the fe number might be bouncing, or it might be showing right where trash would be. Making the detectorist think he had trash and he bypassed the quarter.
Now, lets say that the ctx puts a quarter in the sweet spot 90% of the time. There's only a 10% chance the detectorist might miss a quarter because he thinks it's trash. That's much better. Or one would think so.
This also has it's problems. Scrunching that quarter, or any good item, up onto the fe 12 line might put it right where trash items read. Making it more difficult to determine if it's trash or is it good. Also, scrunching everything on the fe 12 line, to some extent, takes away the ability of the seasoned detectorist to use his skills in determining whether the item is good or bad.
I suppose it's possible that the fe 12 line is a benefit to us less skilled, and a bit of a detriment to those who are more skilled. But, I can also see where the fe 12 line can be a benefit to those more skilled. They just have to learn new tricks. They now have to press their skills to look for even smaller differences in the audio and visual clues to be able to make that final decision good or bad.
Just some thoughts,
Harry
Chris(SoCenWI)
Well-known member
I've used this example before.
If I went to a business meeting with a chart showing a graph of sales figures over the years, and told the audience that even though sales varied over the years I assigned them all a value of twelve so the graph is easier to read I would be laughed out of the room.
Even though the ferrous number was bouncier than the conductive (and hence I can understand why they swapped the FE and CO axis so there are more conductive numbers), it still gave us some useful information. And for some reason they took that away. I'm assuming this was done in software and can be readily undone.
Chris
If I went to a business meeting with a chart showing a graph of sales figures over the years, and told the audience that even though sales varied over the years I assigned them all a value of twelve so the graph is easier to read I would be laughed out of the room.
Even though the ferrous number was bouncier than the conductive (and hence I can understand why they swapped the FE and CO axis so there are more conductive numbers), it still gave us some useful information. And for some reason they took that away. I'm assuming this was done in software and can be readily undone.
Chris