Look at the Tec in cell phones now days taken the place of computers. Thin and small. Fish Finders almost tell you what kind of fish it is. You cant tell me these company's cant do it better. Even if you use the sound, a target makes to id little better I watched a program the other day about sound and how all objects produce a different sound wave.. Maybe I'm way off but i look at all area's and the improvements should be a lot better than they are in Detectors. Just my thinking.
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.
Metal Detecting ??? Should be lot better at ID things
- Thread starter goldman55
- Start date
Heelgrasper
New member
You're more than welcome to tell what kind of technology they should use that they aren't already using. To my knowledge no technology today can give better ID's. Just like fish finders can't tell you anything about what fish it is or even if it's a fish. Don't know where you got that idea from.
Well look at the new XP Dues. All wireless detector and a very good one at that from what you hear and read, but at a $1800.00 list price. I think any detector you pay over $700 should be wireless head phones, we should not even be using wired Headphones. That should have been done a few years back on all detectors except maybe cheaper ones. As for the fish finder that was just a comment on how much better they are now as to when i bought my first one. You can say that for Meteal Detectors to. I'm no expert on any electronic stuff so i only comment about what i see around me. From TVs to Cell phones etc. Leaps and Bounds in the last 3-5 yrs but not so in Detectors maybe its the money in research i don't know but all i was saying they should be more advance than they are in some aspect to their operation. Not just put on a new Shirt call it something else. To make a little point here some of the older detectors bring as much price used as they did new now why is that? You read and hear Best one they made or will find just as much so on. Well that to me says a lot, like this 8 track player was $250 new, got to be better than that Cheap new $28.00 CD player. Don't get me wrong I love this Hobbie, being out doors never know what your going to find, sometimes i feel good when i find a Tab because I'm here enjoying this hobby but i also spend the Money for this.Now i been doing this for 30 yrs off and on because of my job now retired. I don't see the big differents in Detectors as much as they sould be.
My first detector was a Garrett groundhog with no meter just a bunch of knobs. It had a vlf all metal mode and a tr discriminator. I felt like an expert with that machine. I could "Reverse" discriminate on deep targets . It worked well. Second detector was a Whites eagle II. Its a good machine but I always felt like a dummy using it. I also had the old flasher fish finder which I was good at and newer lcd units where I feel like a dummy trying to operate.
Marcus Detectus
New member
Since we are giving our opinions as part of this "conversation" I'd like to chime in. I have been detecting for about 8 years now and watched my friend go from sound to ID screens. It wasn't long when he went back to his sound machines again. But that was his choice. All I know is that after much learning with the ID he realized that for him, sound was the most prolific producer. I have tried ID machines but like the sound only as it's what I know best, and the main reason is I can keep my eyes fixed on the ground. Others will of course disagree. Maybe some day they will come up with a fool proof ID detector but with all the variables out there, for the 2 of us, our "sound" judgement is listen till we reach the age we can't "translate" what's being said to us and then rely on screens if we wish to pursue the hobby further.
And 1 final thought, even a detector with ID can also be "learned" by the owner to find out what it's saying. Cover the screen with tape and learn your "2nd" machine and get the best of both.
And 1 final thought, even a detector with ID can also be "learned" by the owner to find out what it's saying. Cover the screen with tape and learn your "2nd" machine and get the best of both.
MNCoinhunter
Active member
Even the veteran Minelab Explorer guys will tell you that the end result is to be able to use the detector by sound only. I actually considered trying to use my Explorer in what I call .. Jedi Mode. Just cover the screen and hunt by sound alone. I think that would be the best way to learn it. Sorry I kind of got off the subject there ..
Jason in Enid
Active member
Cell phones are changing by leaps and bounds. They still use a radio signal to transmit you voice to a tower that puts it into a wire. Everything else just extra bells and whistles that have nothing to do with a cell phone. I can build a car around a cell phone. That doesn't mean the car is new technology.
goldman55, the reason cell-phones and 'puters take off by leaps and bounds in tech and lowering prices, is because EVERYONE has one. Thus the research & development are much more well-funded, via the demand. Contrast to metal detectors: they are a niche geeky hobby, where relatively few are sold, and fewer users yet ever advance to actually take them out of the closet and use them (ie.: hardcore hobbyists).
I'm sure if the demand for metal detectors was as much as the demand for PC's and cell-phones, then yeah, perhaps something would have been developed by now (by virtue of un-limited R&D $$) that could tell aluminum apart from gold, and so forth. But since it's a niche hobby (when you start talking the true cadillac detectors, and leave out the Radio Shack toys, for the sake of discussion), there just isn't the R&D money to progress.
And your example of fish finders (which have great accuracy, at great distances) is flawed. Because there is one BBBIIIIGGGG difference between that, and metal targets in the ground: The medium through which the signal flows: water verses ground. Because you see, water presents no interference for the sent-signal. It just goes and goes until it bounces off of something solid. Contrast to solid ground, and it's an entirely different beast to work with.
Same for some people's example of the accuracy of medical x-rays, which are so detailed, you can see the shape of objects inside a person's body. But the catch is, the sent signal is being received on the opposite side of the subject being x-rayed. So we too could attain to such accuracy, if we could place a receiving panel/plate a foot under the ground, in the places we want to detect, eh?
I'm sure if the demand for metal detectors was as much as the demand for PC's and cell-phones, then yeah, perhaps something would have been developed by now (by virtue of un-limited R&D $$) that could tell aluminum apart from gold, and so forth. But since it's a niche hobby (when you start talking the true cadillac detectors, and leave out the Radio Shack toys, for the sake of discussion), there just isn't the R&D money to progress.
And your example of fish finders (which have great accuracy, at great distances) is flawed. Because there is one BBBIIIIGGGG difference between that, and metal targets in the ground: The medium through which the signal flows: water verses ground. Because you see, water presents no interference for the sent-signal. It just goes and goes until it bounces off of something solid. Contrast to solid ground, and it's an entirely different beast to work with.
Same for some people's example of the accuracy of medical x-rays, which are so detailed, you can see the shape of objects inside a person's body. But the catch is, the sent signal is being received on the opposite side of the subject being x-rayed. So we too could attain to such accuracy, if we could place a receiving panel/plate a foot under the ground, in the places we want to detect, eh?
Larry (IL)
Well-known member
I would think that if a manufacture could ID targets better at a reasonable cost, they would. They ALL want to sell more detectors and that would sell more for sure.
TerraDigger
New member
I have read posts from detector engineers from Fisher/Whites regarding ID inaccuracies. Simply put, there are thousands of ID possibilities a detector will encounter due to metal type, size, shape, mineralization etc. It's impossible to build a handheld detector that will correctly ID every type of metal object encountered. Many targets exactly mimic other types of targets. If it was possible, it would have been done already. And Tom in CA is correct about medical imaging technology.
"But the catch is, the sent signal is being received on the opposite side of the subject being x-rayed. So we too could attain to such accuracy, if we could place a receiving panel/plate a foot under the ground, in the places we want to detect, eh?
Considering what the detector engineers from several mfg's have to work with (monetary resources/technology barriers), I think they have done an amazing job in the last 30 years.
"But the catch is, the sent signal is being received on the opposite side of the subject being x-rayed. So we too could attain to such accuracy, if we could place a receiving panel/plate a foot under the ground, in the places we want to detect, eh?
Considering what the detector engineers from several mfg's have to work with (monetary resources/technology barriers), I think they have done an amazing job in the last 30 years.
basstrackerman
Well-known member
im glad they are the way they are..gives me excersize...and.....if it becomes too easy then everyone will be doing it...this hobby needs some guesswork to it..
Good Comments from all. Everyone is right on this. I was just thinking small stuff like wireless headphones and at a good price. I like the Target notch from 0-99 were you can notch out what you what, instead of like 5 = when you notch it takes away 40-45. They are becoming more streamline and lighter. I do believe that Multi Freqs detectors are the way to go. If you watch some of the video's like the v3i Having the 3 Freqs and when they pinpoint, pretty much tells a user what type of metal it is on what Freq it is hitting the strongest under.
if you look at tables of resistivity and conductivity of all metals they're all different ,so theoretically its possible, its the ground mineralization and inductance permeability that causes probs?
maybe they need to use another idea such as size and shape via 3d imaging and combine the 2 to give a better idea of what the target actually is
maybe they need to use another idea such as size and shape via 3d imaging and combine the 2 to give a better idea of what the target actually is
BarberBill
New member
One limitation I didn't see mentioned is, after a certain point is reached, the physics involved set the limit whether we like it or not. A good example of what I mean is in photography. The very best designed and quality built telephoto lense will not produce the same or equal number of lines of resolution as a similar or even somewhat lessor quality standard lense. At least at current capabilities this is governed by the physics of light, not the effort of engineers/designers. Also, there is one SURE way to get a positive target ID that costs the manufacturers nothing and insures the retrieval of the most good targets. Dig it all.
BB
BB
michaelosully
New member
As for ID'ing by tone...could have maybe 40 years ago. I'm glad to have 'both' sound and visual today (even if it's not accurate)!
As for technology...I don't have a clue and yes, I feel like a dummy every time I dig a pulltab cause my TID said it was a 3 carat diamond pure gold ring (in my mind). Who knows, maybe the next signal will be.
Technology is advancing so fast that in 10 years we may have tool called the "dual purpose Fish & Find" ground & water multi medium detector. Might give a surface ID of a 34 lb. striped bass only 6" deep in mineralized ground ( 'dirt fishin'???).
Guess it time to go outside, listen to the high and low tones, glance down at the digital screen, dig whatever it is in reality, and be thankful that I can see, hear, dig somethin', and dream for better toys tomorrow. Maybe I'll go fishing this weekend.
As for technology...I don't have a clue and yes, I feel like a dummy every time I dig a pulltab cause my TID said it was a 3 carat diamond pure gold ring (in my mind). Who knows, maybe the next signal will be.
Technology is advancing so fast that in 10 years we may have tool called the "dual purpose Fish & Find" ground & water multi medium detector. Might give a surface ID of a 34 lb. striped bass only 6" deep in mineralized ground ( 'dirt fishin'???).
Guess it time to go outside, listen to the high and low tones, glance down at the digital screen, dig whatever it is in reality, and be thankful that I can see, hear, dig somethin', and dream for better toys tomorrow. Maybe I'll go fishing this weekend.
REVIER
Well-known member
Technology advances in it's own time and at it's own pace.
Will we have cold fusion in our lifetime?
Who knows, but it would be cool if that did happen.
All I know is I went the the Worlds Fair in New York in 1964.
I do remember going to the GM exhibit.
They promised me everyone would have flying cars by the year 2000!
Still waiting....
Will we have cold fusion in our lifetime?
Who knows, but it would be cool if that did happen.
All I know is I went the the Worlds Fair in New York in 1964.
I do remember going to the GM exhibit.
They promised me everyone would have flying cars by the year 2000!
Still waiting....
BarberBill
New member
I'm going to comment on this once again. In my limited experience with 5 different detectors with TID screens over the last several years, every one was quite accurate if a person is willing to accept the notion that it's always a machine's best guess. One thing I've noticed which I think is interesting is while a detector will often mistake some trash, bottle caps, steel washers etc. as coins, I don't remember ever having one identify a coin as trash. Every machine I've used, when the target actually was a coin, it was identified as a coin. For whatever reason, apparently coins are less likely to be identified as trash than vice versa. Anyway, part of the fun for me is determining what made the detector respond, whether trash or a goodie.
BB
BB