Nice video.
Here's an experiment for someone.
Would involve air testing only.
Be sure to use fbs/fbs2 detector in the mix.
Take some coins.
Airtest at say 6" with various detectors document readings.
Then grind the coin thinner just a little, retest by sweeping with all detectors.
Keep grinding down and testing.
What would a person notice?
The fbs detector, yes it will start reading lower ID wise (conductive number), and the other more typical vlfs will too.
But the fbs/ fbs 2 detector(s) will read closer value wise to the original condition coin(s).
If we sweep a nickel with fbs detector say at 5" deep. And it reads a conducive numbe of 12.
This is not the what ideally a nickel reads is it, more like 13.
But if we sweep this same nickel that does infact read 12 conductive, how far off vdi wise will the nickel read using the more typical .(non fbs) detectors?
More than one point likely,right?
So even if the fbs/fbs 2 detectors get it wrong (not ideal) TID wise, they can put the odds in a users favor moreso vs what info more typical Vlf detectors provide.
Remember TID scale of fbs/fbs2 vs Vdi of more typical vlf detectors,,,scale is compressed. So if a person applies this being compressed here, one might think the more spread out Vdi range of more typical vlfs would be more accurate in reporting say a nickel vs junk targets.
Just food for thought here.