........I've been a detector user since 1970. I can honestly say that detector companies seem to be out of ideas........ breakthroughs!!! When I started, BFO technology was replaced by the TR breakthru! Then came the VLF breakthru...........then the normal speed VLF disc breakthru was next. Target ID /Tone ID followed soon after.Teknetics had a tone ID so accurate that today's audio target id's don't even come close to it !!! Are we really advancing?? But what real breakthru have we had in the last 10 years...........let's be honest. I don't call tinkering with a target ID readout a breakthru?? Waterproofing a detector..... not really a breakthru!!! With all of today,s high tech know how... why are our detectors today not advancing to the "next level".... as the techies would say? Why are we stalled in modified 90's technology? Heck I don't know of a single currently produced detector, that can give me clean silent dependable discrimination over a bottle cap?? You know what I'd call a real breakthru .... an iron discriminating pulse machine for example. I'm still waiting for a "NEW " detector not a reworked/modified yesterday machine in a pretty new box!!! Anyone feel like I do......... got any comments , or am I alone on this one?? Thanks for participating.
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.
Sad to say the era of "breakthroughs" has ended........
- Thread starter Ivan
- Start date
TerraDigger
New member
Perhaps the basic technology is old....vlf......but the improvements are pretty impressive....eg.Minelab/White's FBS....Fisher/Tek. Compared to 25 yr's ago...much has improved. In regards to discriminating pulse induction....that's a technological barrier of pulse itself....its not like the engineers aren't trying. Maybe if mfg's had the money/backing of the gov't.....like defense companies......then perhaps we would see some breakthrough technology.
Jason in Enid
Active member
The multi frequency detectors are another step forward over the traditional VLF machines. I don't think it's the quantum leap in technology, but that may come from it. The top minelabs are also using time shifting (which I admit I don't completely understand yet).
You have to keep in mind that this is about sending energy into the ground, and interpreting the energy that comes back. There are only so many ways you can do that.
You have to keep in mind that this is about sending energy into the ground, and interpreting the energy that comes back. There are only so many ways you can do that.
MarkCZ
Well-known member
Jason in Enid said:
Fisher had dual frequency in the early CZ's and that's been way over 10 years ago.
The biggest improvement I've seen in the past 30 year was from the mid 80's to the early 90's and that was depth. But even that was still modified mid 80's stuff.
Then the next quest or improvement was package size and weight!
The FBS your talking really only runs one frequency at a time, it does have a bunch to choose from at start up but it searches for a clean frequency then runs that.
Now the older Fisher's and the newest Whites are running true multiple frequencies, so there has been a break through in that area.
The next thought to be BIG break through are more information at the display, but as cool as it is much of the information isn't very reliable.
I'm with the title poster on many points!
And for me that's why I'm okay with the older detectors I have, also that makes for a really good used detector market.
Mark
You may be surprised at the breakthroughs.Yet still working within the boundaries of basic radio waves transmit and receive.............. I keep thinking somewhere in the near future that Satellite
tech will come into play using GPS and instant interpretation of targets processed through the systems..................LOL.I'm still waiting for a built in clock on the screen...
Or a detector that can be programmed for different hunting scenarios via wireless to a main computer programmer at the manufactures... Science Fiction ?? Not as far off as we might think !!!
tech will come into play using GPS and instant interpretation of targets processed through the systems..................LOL.I'm still waiting for a built in clock on the screen...
Or a detector that can be programmed for different hunting scenarios via wireless to a main computer programmer at the manufactures... Science Fiction ?? Not as far off as we might think !!!
I started in about '75 or '76-ish. At first I had an all-metal TR, as did the buddy who introduced me to the hobby. But soon, we began to see TR discriminators. Wohoo, we had to have one! (could finally pass foil, tabs, etc...). But oh no, within a year or two, we began to see these guys swinging/whipping their coils like golf clubs. We laughed at their stupidity, but soon stopped laughing when we saw all the silver they were finding. So ... woohooo we all ran out and bought VLF discriminators of that era (6000d, red baron, etc...). But within a year or two, better ones were hitting the market with slowed down swing speed, deeper depths, TID added, etc....
And on and on it went for about that 10 yr. period. If you didn't update every other year or so, it was as if you had a dinasour!
But you're right: at the present time, there are 15 (or even 20 yr. old) machines that can still compete.
It might be that technology has simply hit it's limits. There is only so much you can do to "see through" solid soil. And a point of diminishing returns on depth that you can reach, while still having some semblence of iron disc.
And on and on it went for about that 10 yr. period. If you didn't update every other year or so, it was as if you had a dinasour!
But you're right: at the present time, there are 15 (or even 20 yr. old) machines that can still compete.
It might be that technology has simply hit it's limits. There is only so much you can do to "see through" solid soil. And a point of diminishing returns on depth that you can reach, while still having some semblence of iron disc.
With the miniaturization of electrical components and GPS technology, it would be relatively simple to incorporate that into a detector, transmit that signal through a cell phone, and store that info on a main frame someplace,...Just think, If you could pull up to a totlot, beach, or sports field, and your detector tells you when the last one was there, and the pattern they walked, how long they were there, etc. Of course sorta Big Brotherish, but face it, your cell phone knows where you are at all times anyway, It would be a great advantage over just winging it. or even working a pattern that wasn't hit for a while. Interesting to think about anyway.
Mud
Mud
Mike Hillis
Well-known member
Wow....
I've seen some great stuff......
Minelab's ferrous and conductive readouts for objects - allows you to see both the ferrous and conductive phase shifts.
Garretts Imaging - allowing you to see true size and depth,
Fishers FE304 meters - allowing you to see the "strength" of the ground minerals.
Whites ability to see raw phase shift (non-normallized) for the frequency used - allows you to see expanded phase shift ranges for a certain frequency.
Those are the ones that come readily to mind. I think what is more of an issue is that we can't get these features combined into a single unit. We are stuck with limping around with half of the available information that could be available to us about an inground metal object.
HH
Mike
I've seen some great stuff......
Minelab's ferrous and conductive readouts for objects - allows you to see both the ferrous and conductive phase shifts.
Garretts Imaging - allowing you to see true size and depth,
Fishers FE304 meters - allowing you to see the "strength" of the ground minerals.
Whites ability to see raw phase shift (non-normallized) for the frequency used - allows you to see expanded phase shift ranges for a certain frequency.
Those are the ones that come readily to mind. I think what is more of an issue is that we can't get these features combined into a single unit. We are stuck with limping around with half of the available information that could be available to us about an inground metal object.
HH
Mike
BarberBill
New member
I think "Breakthroughs" are ultimately limited by the physics involved and the potential development costs. Man's been to the moon, but we're still one hell of a long way from faster or even as fast as light, travel. And probably will be for a very long time.
My two bits.
BB
My two bits.
BB
bootyhoundpa
Well-known member
lots of great comments here.....i goota agree with barber bill..... physics and cost being the two main stummbling blocks......if someone could build your dream machine would you be willing to spend between $25.000--$40.000 for it..... how many times in the 1970s and 80s did you here that rumour about a car that could get 50 miles to the gallon....no one thought we would ever see the day..... telephones you carry around in your pocket that you can take pictures with and send that picture to another phone...... someone once said if you can dream it you can do it.... if theres enough money to be made -profit- someone will spend the time and money to figure it out....
When the detector no longer uses electromagnetic energy to determine what the target 'may be', and uses chemical analysis to truly determine what it is. That way, the detector will truly be able to let you know that the target down below has some gold or silver in it, as opposed to the pull tab being in the same electromagnetic range as an alloyed piece of gold jewelry.
But until someone figures out how to get the chemical composition of a target without actually getting a piece of the target, I guess it's science fiction.
But until someone figures out how to get the chemical composition of a target without actually getting a piece of the target, I guess it's science fiction.
salmonriverhotrock
New member
Nope, your not alone Ivan.
A seasoned operator of the Old can be just as productive. Though the Tone and Display units can take some of the mystery away from what you can not see buried, they can also be just as easily fooled.
Personally, I find more of my attention is taken or diverted away from real metal detecting using a Tone and Display than if I were using the older by sound only machines. By sound, your not taken away by looking at displays. I find myself more often going back to the sound and dig machine than the Tone and Display. I don't think it's anywhere near being the Engineers as much there is only so much that can be done playing with the Laws of Physics. I do think coil design has moved detecting ahead more than anything else.
mikeothmer
New member
With the continuous advances in Computer Technology I could imagine better interpretation of the signals received by the detecting unit. Maybe giving a picture on the screen of the objects in the ground under the coil and their relationship to each other in a 3-d read out. Not so far fetched in my mind !
the poster is right , not much change in true unadulterated accuracy is there . GPR must be the answer .but when ?
my buddy who detects on the River Thames foreshore in London uses a Compass 77b that is over 30 years old and works well in minearlised soil. when i matched it against my collection of latest machines it was actually equal and no worse at finding coins amongst nail clusters .
so a machine from the late 70s early 80s still works good compared with the hi tech latest machines .
not much progress there .
the ID meters are too unreliable to depend on them !
my buddy who detects on the River Thames foreshore in London uses a Compass 77b that is over 30 years old and works well in minearlised soil. when i matched it against my collection of latest machines it was actually equal and no worse at finding coins amongst nail clusters .
so a machine from the late 70s early 80s still works good compared with the hi tech latest machines .
not much progress there .
the ID meters are too unreliable to depend on them !
scubadetector
New member
I think there are more and real accomplishments ahead. LOL I remember when I was in colege in 1990 they told us voice on a computer was impossible becasue all the memory it took up!! Somebody needs to take the CZ-21 and or the Excal and make ONLY a fresh water unit OR a unit you can switch between fresh and salt mode. More small gold will be found then.
No, more inventions will come, maybe not soon, maybe not in my lifetime BUT they will come.
No, more inventions will come, maybe not soon, maybe not in my lifetime BUT they will come.