A
Anonymous
Guest
Some of you may remember that in my previous test, dubbed the "Dreaded Square Nail Challenge", I used only one kind of target, dug square nails. I was trying to determine the effects of target masking by <STRONG>ferrous</STRONG> objects with my new Garrett GTP 1350.
In fact, as we learned in the Dreaded Square Nail Challenge, ferrous masking is a genuine problem and it can be nearly impossible to ID a good target (in that test a silver dime), if it's within 2" of your average square nail. Thus, it's safe to assume that this is the case where there is any type of sizable iron trash in the ground.
I recognize, though, that not all detectors are used solely at plowed-field battle sites or virgin Revolutionary Era home sites, where iron trash might be the only kind you have to contend with. Most of us press our detectors into a mulitude of tasks and so I thought that another comparison was in order. I call it the : "Park and Playground Face-off "
In this test, the goal is to determine how the detector, again my newly acquired Garrett GTP 1350, responds to masking and interference by commonly encountered <STRONG>NON-FERROUS </STRONG>trash targets. It is also hoped that I can learn to recognize these responses, as I did in the square nail tests, to help me increase my "goodie to junk ratio". The likeliest place to find such non-ferrous trash under detecting conditions is at the average playground, schoolyard and park, thus the name of the test.
It's no secret that many, if not all of you, take your detectors to such places regularly. They are often the first places you ever searched with a detector and are probably where you continue to take any new detector to "wring it out". They are close to home, easily accessible (except in NJ!!) and 'goodies' exist in these places in abundance. Many of my nicer finds came from such sites and I steadily add to my "Investment Coin Fund" with visits to these places.
Ok, so we admit to taking our detectors to these places. By doing so, most of us have also learned by now that the variety of trash found at these places is staggering. Since this test is being conducted to ascertain response to masking by non-ferrous trash, just what sort of n-f trash DOES one find in such locales? And, more importantly, which samples should be selected for testing?
Since I often save my trash till I get home from detecting, I have a nice "collection" of such stuff in my Junk Box - all of it actually dug from precisely the sort of places I've mentioned: public parks, schools and playgrounds. That's as good as any place to find some representative samples for my test, so lets have a look in my box, shall we?...
...<span style="background-color:#ffff00;">Whew! What a pile of junk!</span> As I've indicated already, the assortment of trash one finds when detecting boggles the mind. My junk box is full of a variety of crap such as several kinds of pull-tabs, pull-tab TABS (and of course, pull-tab rings sans tab), foil wads large and small, "canslaw", ie, mower-mangled aluminum can pieces, washers, screws and other hardware, brass pieces, screwcaps, assorted "twisties" and dirt-encrusted @#&!...the list goes on. This stuff almost seems to "breed" underground!
However, I have narrowed my "blacklist" of samples to the following, mostly because these are what I have actually found from a variety of sites AND because they are consistently found from place to place. They, as a group, represent a constant. In general order of conductivity, from lowest to highest I will use:
1. Foil wads, large and small
2. Pencil Erasers
3. Square pull tabs
3. Ring pull tabs
4. Screw caps
5. Soft drink cans and can tops
6. Various bits of canslaw, which can span the conductivity range.
Additionally, in selecting this list of sample trash for evaluation, I will make one assumption, as follows:
Assumption 1.
Garrett's own research has shown these items to be commonly found junk and has developed the detector to properly cope with these junk items.
This assumption is based on the fact that, after all, the ID screen overlay on the 1350 has most of these as ID reference icons!
In the interests of brevity (me, brief?), I cannot possibly use ALL the trash one might encounter. For example, where I live in South Carolina, every older school yard has a "layer" of old shotshell bases at about 3". You may have none of these, but something else completely different to contend with. If I tried to include everything, I'd never actually go detecting <EM>outside</EM> again.
Also, I am forced to leave out all the various "bragging" items which are not technically trash, but are not of any real value, either. Such "cool" things as hose spouts, toy cars, keys, live 9MM ammunition, Disney zipper pulls...well, this list would also be way too long to try to include in the testing. Thus, I will have to stick to the selected test targets and accept some generalities on this subject.
In Part 2 of the "Park and Playground Face-off", I will show the results of my testing. Some of the tests are already complete, but since there are a lot more targets to test than in my last experiment, it will take awhile. I hope to have this all done by Xmas. Look out for it, my friends.
Thanks for following along!
KEB
David
Aiken, SC
In fact, as we learned in the Dreaded Square Nail Challenge, ferrous masking is a genuine problem and it can be nearly impossible to ID a good target (in that test a silver dime), if it's within 2" of your average square nail. Thus, it's safe to assume that this is the case where there is any type of sizable iron trash in the ground.
I recognize, though, that not all detectors are used solely at plowed-field battle sites or virgin Revolutionary Era home sites, where iron trash might be the only kind you have to contend with. Most of us press our detectors into a mulitude of tasks and so I thought that another comparison was in order. I call it the : "Park and Playground Face-off "
In this test, the goal is to determine how the detector, again my newly acquired Garrett GTP 1350, responds to masking and interference by commonly encountered <STRONG>NON-FERROUS </STRONG>trash targets. It is also hoped that I can learn to recognize these responses, as I did in the square nail tests, to help me increase my "goodie to junk ratio". The likeliest place to find such non-ferrous trash under detecting conditions is at the average playground, schoolyard and park, thus the name of the test.
It's no secret that many, if not all of you, take your detectors to such places regularly. They are often the first places you ever searched with a detector and are probably where you continue to take any new detector to "wring it out". They are close to home, easily accessible (except in NJ!!) and 'goodies' exist in these places in abundance. Many of my nicer finds came from such sites and I steadily add to my "Investment Coin Fund" with visits to these places.
Ok, so we admit to taking our detectors to these places. By doing so, most of us have also learned by now that the variety of trash found at these places is staggering. Since this test is being conducted to ascertain response to masking by non-ferrous trash, just what sort of n-f trash DOES one find in such locales? And, more importantly, which samples should be selected for testing?
Since I often save my trash till I get home from detecting, I have a nice "collection" of such stuff in my Junk Box - all of it actually dug from precisely the sort of places I've mentioned: public parks, schools and playgrounds. That's as good as any place to find some representative samples for my test, so lets have a look in my box, shall we?...
...<span style="background-color:#ffff00;">Whew! What a pile of junk!</span> As I've indicated already, the assortment of trash one finds when detecting boggles the mind. My junk box is full of a variety of crap such as several kinds of pull-tabs, pull-tab TABS (and of course, pull-tab rings sans tab), foil wads large and small, "canslaw", ie, mower-mangled aluminum can pieces, washers, screws and other hardware, brass pieces, screwcaps, assorted "twisties" and dirt-encrusted @#&!...the list goes on. This stuff almost seems to "breed" underground!
However, I have narrowed my "blacklist" of samples to the following, mostly because these are what I have actually found from a variety of sites AND because they are consistently found from place to place. They, as a group, represent a constant. In general order of conductivity, from lowest to highest I will use:
1. Foil wads, large and small
2. Pencil Erasers
3. Square pull tabs
3. Ring pull tabs
4. Screw caps
5. Soft drink cans and can tops
6. Various bits of canslaw, which can span the conductivity range.
Additionally, in selecting this list of sample trash for evaluation, I will make one assumption, as follows:
Assumption 1.
Garrett's own research has shown these items to be commonly found junk and has developed the detector to properly cope with these junk items.
This assumption is based on the fact that, after all, the ID screen overlay on the 1350 has most of these as ID reference icons!
In the interests of brevity (me, brief?), I cannot possibly use ALL the trash one might encounter. For example, where I live in South Carolina, every older school yard has a "layer" of old shotshell bases at about 3". You may have none of these, but something else completely different to contend with. If I tried to include everything, I'd never actually go detecting <EM>outside</EM> again.
Also, I am forced to leave out all the various "bragging" items which are not technically trash, but are not of any real value, either. Such "cool" things as hose spouts, toy cars, keys, live 9MM ammunition, Disney zipper pulls...well, this list would also be way too long to try to include in the testing. Thus, I will have to stick to the selected test targets and accept some generalities on this subject.
In Part 2 of the "Park and Playground Face-off", I will show the results of my testing. Some of the tests are already complete, but since there are a lot more targets to test than in my last experiment, it will take awhile. I hope to have this all done by Xmas. Look out for it, my friends.
Thanks for following along!
KEB
David
Aiken, SC
">