thebeatmachine
Member
What does everyone think about the interview? They sounded pretty optimistic about what is to come. And getting a detector to detect 2 feet on a coin?
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.
White's Engineers interview
- Thread starter thebeatmachine
- Start date
[size=large]It is possible, but ....
Search coil dynamics has to be an interesting study in itself, but there are a lot of factors involved in gaining 'depth' and I would think that a big problem would be getting the end user to understand when and where to employ a search coil/detector combo with such potential. As it is we have a situation where manufacturers have tried to provide us with reasonable, functional depth of detection, but they still hear the cry for 'Depth .. Depth .. Depth!!' from the end users.
Most of us hunt for single coins, single rings, single buttons or bullets, and small targets are more difficult to locate than a larger object. Add to that the fact that they are too often located at sites with other metal targets that cause masking and you have one problem. An additional 'problem' is ground mineralization. Certainly we have to figure our modern-day trend to want visual and audio Target ID of high accuracy presents an additional challenge because as it is we have many detector/coil combination that can locate a desirable target, but the detector operator chooses not to recover it because they didn't get a 100% lock-on TID info, or there is a VDI but the reading is 'off' from what a perfect 'air test' read-out might be and they ignore it.
As I think back over my years of detecting I can clearly recall some of my deeper, honest-depth, coin finds Vs a particular coil.. A few years ago an 8"-8
Search coil dynamics has to be an interesting study in itself, but there are a lot of factors involved in gaining 'depth' and I would think that a big problem would be getting the end user to understand when and where to employ a search coil/detector combo with such potential. As it is we have a situation where manufacturers have tried to provide us with reasonable, functional depth of detection, but they still hear the cry for 'Depth .. Depth .. Depth!!' from the end users.
Most of us hunt for single coins, single rings, single buttons or bullets, and small targets are more difficult to locate than a larger object. Add to that the fact that they are too often located at sites with other metal targets that cause masking and you have one problem. An additional 'problem' is ground mineralization. Certainly we have to figure our modern-day trend to want visual and audio Target ID of high accuracy presents an additional challenge because as it is we have many detector/coil combination that can locate a desirable target, but the detector operator chooses not to recover it because they didn't get a 100% lock-on TID info, or there is a VDI but the reading is 'off' from what a perfect 'air test' read-out might be and they ignore it.
As I think back over my years of detecting I can clearly recall some of my deeper, honest-depth, coin finds Vs a particular coil.. A few years ago an 8"-8
Larry (IL)
Well-known member
Carl said the technology was possible in good ground with no trash for a VLF machine to go 2 feet. There are some PI machines that will go that deep now and some VLF detectors that go well past 12" on "good" ground. (Beaches) Common sense and practicality become big factors at that depth. I would not buy a detector just because it would go 2 feet deep because I don't want to dig 2 foot holes just to retrieve a coin. Even digging 10-12 inch deep holes to retrieve targets is getting close to work and not play, not to mention the damage we would do to our hobby if we would dig 2 foot holes in our parks and peoples yards. All public land detecting would come to an end as we know it and yard hunting as well. This is why we are losing many public hunting places now because technology has broken the 12 inch barrier and some hunters are not very careful with their 12" hole now.
Larry, I understand where you are coming from but I was thinking about relic hunting, like in plowed fields, woods hunting, non-mowed areas. Like Monte stated situations where humans or animals had cause objects to sink further in the ground.
I agree that idiots can cause problems with a detector that have excessive depth.
I agree that idiots can cause problems with a detector that have excessive depth.
thebeatmachine
Member
I won't be the one to provided MD engineers a back door to escape the cry for 'Depth .. Depth .. Depth!!' from the end users. We give the industry our money, why not demand the product that we really expect. I want a six inch coil that will detect a buried dime at a foot. If that is too much power, than I expect the detector to have a Sense knob to turn down. And a deep ID too that's my next end user war chant!
I had idea about an ID circuit, lets say a nickle reads as a nickle should at 5" now another nickle is buried at 8" the detector can "See" it but the ID is masked by the soil and it is giving a false reading because of mineralisation. Can't a new circuit take in the target's 1. signal strength (I.E. its depth), 2. The reading of the proper GB balance (soil mineralisation) and use those values to offset that false reading on the 8" nickle to give the user an estimated, and more accurate ID on deeper targets?
I had idea about an ID circuit, lets say a nickle reads as a nickle should at 5" now another nickle is buried at 8" the detector can "See" it but the ID is masked by the soil and it is giving a false reading because of mineralisation. Can't a new circuit take in the target's 1. signal strength (I.E. its depth), 2. The reading of the proper GB balance (soil mineralisation) and use those values to offset that false reading on the 8" nickle to give the user an estimated, and more accurate ID on deeper targets?
depth is relative!..what the hobby really needs is technology that will get between the junk that is everywhere and "hit" the old coins that are there in abundance!
the "f'"series detectors have really attempted to address this,and,i for one can't "thank" them enough for making the effort!
(h.h!)
j.t.
the "f'"series detectors have really attempted to address this,and,i for one can't "thank" them enough for making the effort!
(h.h!)
j.t.
Larry (IL)
Well-known member
Here is an idea for the engineers and users alike to kick around. We know the technology is there for true multiple frequency detectors and they have proved themselves as valuable in very tough ground like black sand and salt water beaches. Why couldn't White's make a detector that uses three or four frequencies operating at the same time and feed the multiple frequencies into a coil that has physically multiple loops, one for each of the frequencies? I don't think they would have to be big to be effective, like three 5 inch coils in a triangle. With the high speed microprocessors used today the possibilities could be endless.
The three frequency, three coil loop could be used in a phase array like our astronomy telescopes. Multiple telescopes looking at the same thing in space gives a much better digital image when the combined data is correlated, even if only one frequency was used. Another thought is triangulation. With three frequencies from a phase array coil, they could locate the exact position of the target at all times on the screen with other valuable data such as depth, size, composition, and maybe structure. (Round, irregular, etc)
Look at the GPS system that we have now with three or more satellites, we can be pinpointed anywhere on the planet. Why can't we do that on a smaller scale that will go two feet in the ground? The police triangulate our cell phones and being a ham radio guy, we used to have fun many years ago finding the hidden transmitter in a large city through triangulation. This can be done with only one frequency, just think what can be done with three or more operating at the same time?
The three frequency, three coil loop could be used in a phase array like our astronomy telescopes. Multiple telescopes looking at the same thing in space gives a much better digital image when the combined data is correlated, even if only one frequency was used. Another thought is triangulation. With three frequencies from a phase array coil, they could locate the exact position of the target at all times on the screen with other valuable data such as depth, size, composition, and maybe structure. (Round, irregular, etc)
Look at the GPS system that we have now with three or more satellites, we can be pinpointed anywhere on the planet. Why can't we do that on a smaller scale that will go two feet in the ground? The police triangulate our cell phones and being a ham radio guy, we used to have fun many years ago finding the hidden transmitter in a large city through triangulation. This can be done with only one frequency, just think what can be done with three or more operating at the same time?
Hmmm, I thought everyone was fairly well pleased with the present technology.
Not me though, whatever advancement that can be made, I am all for it.
The engineers need some ideas because even though some of the new detectors in the past few years are nice, there are some solid performing older detectors that can do the same thing.
They have added more user features and made them lighter than the older models but that is about it.
If repackaging is about all that is left for them to do then I am not interested in any new models.
I guess brands have to make sure their "new" mid range model doesn't out perform their flagship,
if however they would make a killer model for 500, then they could outsell the competition and make a lot of money. The manufacturers of metal detectors seem well pleased with the current models they sell, wonder how many engineers use the detectors they build? Maybe that is the reason we don't see any cutting edge advancements coming out and the old adage of don't fix what isn't broken probably holds true, status quo?
Not me though, whatever advancement that can be made, I am all for it.
The engineers need some ideas because even though some of the new detectors in the past few years are nice, there are some solid performing older detectors that can do the same thing.
They have added more user features and made them lighter than the older models but that is about it.
If repackaging is about all that is left for them to do then I am not interested in any new models.
I guess brands have to make sure their "new" mid range model doesn't out perform their flagship,
if however they would make a killer model for 500, then they could outsell the competition and make a lot of money. The manufacturers of metal detectors seem well pleased with the current models they sell, wonder how many engineers use the detectors they build? Maybe that is the reason we don't see any cutting edge advancements coming out and the old adage of don't fix what isn't broken probably holds true, status quo?