R2 Air Test

[TN Mike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QTvTADBAT0

I wouldn't mind taking one out for a spin.. But I'm not diggin that deep..

 

[amberjack]

me either but still impressive, imagine it with the big coil

AJ

 

[TN Mike]

I'd love to try this with a clean sweep big foot type coil.

 

[amberjack]

yes me too, they make one I will probably buy a machine probably buy one anyway but a Nokta have a Makro so it would need a friend yes??

AJ

 

[Southwind]

Thanks for the video.

I take two things from the video.

1. Depth potential. While some don't put much faith behind air tests I've done many myself and I'm convinced that the air test is the best case scenario. That is to say If I get an air test of 8" to expect to get a depth greater than that in the ground is a lack of common sense. Yes, under the right conditions you can get greater depth on a target in the ground than in the air, but that is the exception not the rule. I've also heard some say some detectors don't do well with air test, such as the minelabs, but I disagree. My E-Trac hits a great air test and deeper than I get in the ground.

2. The R2 should do very well in freshly plowed fields. This is a place where some detectors fail. Again, the Minelab is a good example. It gets amazing depth on hard packed ground but tends to loose depth in a freshly plowed field.

 

[Beyonder]

" That is to say If I get an air test of 8" to expect to get a depth greater than that in the ground is a lack of common sense."

I guess that you don't know that much about targets in the ground. While I agree, in heavy mineralized ground, you lose depth, however, if conditions are right and the dirt is relatively inert, greater depth can be achieved than in an air test. This is due to several factors.

"I've also heard some say some detectors don't do well with air test, such as the minelabs, but I disagree. My E-Trac hits a great air test and deeper than I get in the ground."

You must be doing something drastically wrong. An etrac/ctx depth and TID is at it's best in ground BECAUSE of FBS/BBS. A pulse machine is horrible in air tests, and we all know how deep they go.

 

[Southwind]

I guess that you don't know that much about targets in the ground. While I agree, in heavy mineralized ground, you lose depth, however, if conditions are right and the dirt is relatively inert, greater depth can be achieved than in an air test. This is due to several factors.

Yes, under the right conditions you can get greater depth on a target in the ground than in the air, but that is the exception not the rule.

HELLO!

You must be doing something drastically wrong. An etrac/ctx depth and TID is at it's best in ground BECAUSE of FBS/BBS. A pulse machine is horrible in air tests, and we all know how deep they go.

No, you must be thinking wrong. I get no more depth in the ground than I can get in the air with my E-Trac. I can air test a coin at 10" with my E-Trac. That is roughly the same maximum depth I can get in the ground in most conditions.

Since we are talking VLF's here I didn't bring TID or Dual Box in to the scenario because it doesn't fit. How many coin hunt in the dirt with a TID/Pulse?

And just for the record, even the detector manufacturers will tell you an air test IS a best case test and to not expect any greater depth in the ground, but a reduced depth depending on conditions.

 

[Beyonder]

"And just for the record, even the detector manufacturers will tell you an air test IS a best case test and to not expect any greater depth in the ground,"

Several factors can hinder an air test just as well as a target in ground, which affects performance, which affects depth. So that just shows that whatever manufacturer said that statement is incorrect.

"Since we are talking VLF's here I didn't bring TID or Dual Box in to the scenario because it doesn't fit.

No classification of VLF or PI was indicated. Therefore, I felt the need for anyone that doesn't have much experience to clarify so they weren't misinformed.

"How many coin hunt in the dirt with a TID/Pulse?"

I do. TID is target identification. So a lot of people hunt with TID. I hunt with a pulse machine as well, in dirt.

"I've also heard some say some detectors don't do well with air test,"

This could mean depth, separation, TID, anything that has to do with any machine.

"No, you must be thinking wrong."

Nope, just what I experienced. I can air test a quarter on my CTX and get 11" max, I have dug 13" plus quarters. I have dug a 15" STQ on my etrac. The tone was a clipped high pitched chirp. Don't believe me about the FBS/BBS machines doing better in ground. Go read for yourself.

BTW "right conditions" and "The exception" are way different things. An exception is more of a rarity. Right conditions can happen quite often.

I don't know you from anything so this isnt a personal thing, but i am just making sure the right information is out there.

 

[Southwind]

i am just making sure the right information is out there.

So let's do that then.

Source:

Learn Your Metal Detector's Depth Potential, Audio and Visual Responses to Targets

The Depth Potential for targets can be observed only during the Air Test. Under real metal detecting conditions, the detector's actual OPERATIONAL DEPTH RANGE (see details in my article"Metal Detector's Depth Penetration") for the same targets will never surpass the air test results, and may only reach close to them if you detect on neutral ground that is free of iron junk, using the same search coil and utilizing OPTIMAL program settings

Source:

This myth is Busted
Can machines that don't air test well, go deeper in the soil ?
No absolute Crap !! this is scientifically impossible if a machine air tests badly it will detect badly in the soil despite what you read on metal detecting forums and some manufacturers literature.
However some machines that air test better can loose a higher percentage of depth in the soil around 30% depending on what type of search coil is used.
If you suspect these results are wrong, please go out there and do the buried coins test for yourself.
I think you will be amazed!!!!.

Source:

“Air test sensitivity” refers to the maximum repeatable detection distance achievable in air using a standard metal test piece (typically a US nickel coin), with the searchcoil that’s standard with that model, in a location without electrical interference, the machine adjusted to just barely eliminate background chatter. If ground balancing is available on the machine, it must be done using ferrite. …….. A properly done “air test” provides an indication of a machine’s potential to “go deep” on buried coins. Because of interference from magnetic iron minerals in the ground, actual detection depth will usually be much less than what’s achieved in “air test”. (NOTE: for maximum depth on buried objects, search in the all-metals ground balanced mode, which is much less affected by iron minerals.)

Must I go on?

Yes I agree let's get the right information out there.

Sorry about the TID. I was thinking TDI and had actually orignally put TDI and then changed it to TID. My bad.

 

[lytle78]

The link is broken because FM doesn't allow linking to other sites. Of you want to see the source - google "Sergei Upstateny"

 

[Low-Boy/LCPM]

I don't hunt in the air and the dirt changes everything..

 

[Southwind]

The link is broken because FM doesn't allow linking to other sites.

Sorry Findmall I didn't think about the links. I was just wanting to show they were quotes from reputable well thought of people and even a detector manufacturer.

I don't hunt in the air and the dirt changes everything..

Agreed! I was just pointing out that it doesn't get any deeper than an air test except in special conditions.

 

[Beyonder]

There is much more disinformation out there than most realize. A lot of "salesmen" out there. Apparently, this is a delicate topic to you. In the interest of keeping things civil, I will pursue this no further. Have a great day!

 

[togg77]

I assume that most of you folks have heard/read about one Charles Garrett--he's the guy who designed and produced the Garrett metal detectors.Well in 1972 at Mr.Garrett's office he explained to ME how HE used air tests--they checked EACH machine on the bench with a US quarter to ascertain that said machine met an established minimum air detection distance--they allowed a 25% variance between machines.I had discovered this variance on my own by checking each machine that came into my friends shop--making Sure that I had the 'hottest" machine in each batch.He said that actual dirt depth depended on Many variables and he made NO claims or correlation between air tests and actual dirt depth.My actual field experience with GARRETT machines did show that the "hottest air test" machine WAS deeper in our Mississippi loess soil.

 

[Southwind]

this is a delicate topic to you.

No, but the truth is. Nothing personal I just have a problem keep quite when I see false information being posted.

You seem to have a problem excepting the fact you're wrong. No big deal, there are a lot of people who still believe that somehow a detector can magically ignore scientific principals and do the impossible. Hey I was wrong about the TID and and admitted it.

Yes I would not pursue it any further myself if I were you.

My response would have been much different had you not chose to respond with insults. Two things I can't ignore are misinformation and insults. LOL


To get back on topic: Again I say great video. Shows the potential of the Racer 2.

 

[Beyonder]

" Nothing personal I just have a problem keep quite when I see false information being posted."

That's a slick way of calling me a liar and I take offense to that and I take that personally!

You seem to have this same argument on every forum with many different people. Tnet, FMD, and here a few times. All these people telling you the same thing and yet, you still hold on to what you believe. You say air tests depths will beat in ground depth every time with rare exceptions, that's your opinion and I am not saying you were lying. I don't care one way or the other at this point.

I don't see where I insulted you, but if something I said insulted you, I apologize. To me, I was having a debate with you, not attacking and insulting you.

Again, I was willing to let this go and give you the last say, but when you called me a liar, which was completely uncalled for and I am very offended by, I felt the need to respond. If you can't properly debate your point without insulting people, then I see no need to continue.

 

[Southwind]

I don't see where I insulted you

I guess that you don't know that much about targets in the ground.

You must be doing something drastically wrong.

Well then thanks for the compliments?

If you can't properly debate your point without insulting people

Perhaps you should take your own advise.

You seem to have this same argument on every forum with many different people. Tnet, FMD, and here a few times.

Yes and I will continue to do so when I see misinformation.

As I tried to say, I can't keep quiet when I see someone posting misinformation and or insulting me. For the record if I was going to call you a "liar" I would just call you a liar. What I did say was misinformation as in you probably just misinformed don't know what you're posting is false. And just who, besides yourself, are all these people telling me the same thing? Putting words in my mouth won't change the truth. Please point out where I said "rare exceptions"? All one has to do is go back to see what I really said, and it was fact not opinion. It is scientifically impossible for a metal detector to go deeper in the ground than in an air test, with a few exceptions depending on conditions. And once again, that is the exception not the rule.

I do agree I see no need to continue.

 

[Jackpine Savage]

It makes sense to me that air is the best transmission medium for VLF. No was any type of soil can beat it.

 

[squirrel1]

There is one thing about air test that can be misleading.

This is coil air gap.

Units with boost--- many times this will not give much if any additional in ground depth advantage-- yet will give more coil air gap above ground advantage.

 

[amberjack]

yes ^^^ also a great party trick get someone to beat that

AJ