When there's no sensible comments to offer on the core subject of the F75's discriminatory characteristics etc., why try to hide those inadequacies with vulgarity and xenophobic ranting against UK contributors?
To cloak such limitations, by gratuitous reference to other's good names, is not a strong ploy either..............
Regarding the discussion of the T2 and F75's discriminatory characteristics:
Once you are aware of the illustrated characteristics, you then are meant to utilise the effects as a tool to combat conditions and circumstances. This relates to both local EMI and target preferences, particularly in rejecting unwanted natural 'rocks' or such, and 'trash'.
The effects are evident in ALL T2 and F75 modes, with one exception, and that is the 75's JE mode.
The electrical 'image' of any target becomes diminished and degraded with depth. The degree of the degradation is governed by the ferrous nature of the soil and any adjacent material/metals.
The T2/F75's frequency provides fundamentally good target sensitivity. This is enhanced by the 2D search coil's length to breadth ratio.
All those are then complemented by excellent circuit design and software implementation.
The discrimination characteristics are FLEXIBLE in as much as YOU set them according to both the circumstances dictated by the site you're searching, and your audio tolerance levels.
When you reject ferrous targets and low conductivity 'trash', you naturally incur the penalty of also rejecting to a lesser degree any *deeper* targets which under better circumstances do not normally equate to that 'rejected band'.
The relative mass, density and conductivity of an item, determines how easily it can be influenced by depth or proximity to others. Frequency plays a major roll also.
The T2 and F75's superb rejection of those targets within a selected band, does incur some degree of 'fall-out effect' on items not within that band, which consequently and markedly, restricts their audio reporting.
The detectors doesn't loose 'sensitivity' or depth, but rather becomes more vigorous in 'censorship' of not only the target's identity but also its strength. (Dictated by the product of its mass and conductivity).
So it is this undesirable characteristic of 'incidentally restricting' a 'good' target on the basis of its low strength, whilst the discrimination setting is within a specific range that is the problem.
The thing that is different about these units rejection capabilities, is how ONCE YOU'VE EXCEEDED a specific level of rejection setting, the unit quickly begins to restore virtually normal sensitivity to the non-rejected items and yet resolutely curtails those rejected.
It would appear that these units have a two fold approach to applying their disc. power.
Todays software control is different from 'yesterday's' hardware-only approach. Even so, it is still a dilemma to designers as to how definitively one can apply the theory to an imprecise set of circumstances that are inherent in the real, complex world of detecting in soils.
The above comments do not deny the excellent functionality of these detectors. My experiences with them is reflected in the finds that I've made, and I can honestly say that I have achieved some of the most impressively deep items ever. QED.
Should the day ever come when they manufacture a detector has no need of the owner's ability or reasoning, then the hobby will loose its appeal.............MattR.UK.
Readers, judge for yourself......MattR.UK.
