The evolution of metal detectors and the future.

[silver49009]

I've been a member of this forum for 2 or 3 weeks now. Beyond my normal detector specific questions I have some general questions I would love to have answered by some of you well versed in the hobby.

1) I've seen a lot of 6,8,12" depth models. Do you see detectors going even deeper (14"-18") in the near future? I'm not referring to ground penetrating radar, etc. I know there are 5k-100k units out there on a professional level.

I'm referring to mass market models for the consumer.

2) Is it possible given current technology of metal detectors to produce a signal or multi frequency signal that can differentiate between pull tab and gold ring. Even the very best hunters seem to dig 100+ pull tabs for every gold. Do you see technology eleminating this or due to the properties of the metals is this impossible?

3) Do you think in the next 10 years one of the big detector names will come up with something that actually allows you to see the target you are hearing. Not just a dot on a screen at a certain level but a 3d or pixilated picture. With scale you could tell the difference between pulltab, ring, or other object.

[bruinvikes]

Interesting questions as I will be back to check answers (I'm a newbie) Good luck and happy hunting!

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by silver49009

I've been a member of this forum for 2 or 3 weeks now. Beyond my normal detector specific questions I have some general questions I would love to have answered by some of you well versed in the hobby.

1) I've seen a lot of 6,8,12" depth models. Do you see detectors going even deeper (14"-18") in the near future? I'm not referring to ground penetrating radar, etc. I know there are 5k-100k units out there on a professional level.

I'm referring to mass market models for the consumer.

2) Is it possible given current technology of metal detectors to produce a signal or multi frequency signal that can differentiate between pull tab and gold ring. Even the very best hunters seem to dig 100+ pull tabs for every gold. Do you see technology eleminating this or due to the properties of the metals is this impossible?

3) Do you think in the next 10 years one of the big detector names will come up with something that actually allows you to see the target you are hearing. Not just a dot on a screen at a certain level but a 3d or pixilated picture. With scale you could tell the difference between pulltab, ring, or other object.

Good questions! Let me give you my take.

1. I think VLF and PI technologies --and more importantly-- battery energy density in a hand holdable configuration, are nearing their limit. Larger coils will gain you some depth, but coils much beyond 12" start losing sensitivity to small targets. So no, there are no depth breakthroughs on the horizon.

2. Both VLF and PI units work by inducing a magnetic field on the target and sensing that induced field. A PI works by measuring the signal after some decay time from the transmitted field whilst a VLF measures the phase angle between the applied field and the target's field. The dominant factors that affect the target's induced field are due to the target material conductivity, the mass and the shape. So, depending on these factors, trash targets will alias into desirable targets and vice versa. That means that if you are after gold, you have to dig the pull tabs or miss some gold.

3. It would have to be a new technology, not a refinement of what we have today. There are some models out that claim to do some of this, but they are far from foolproof.

[silver49009]

thanks Rudy!

[Vethraxx]

Perhaps when quantum computers and circuits come down to the consumer level, we will see whole new types of detectors.

However you may have to look away from your target to get a signal.

[Schuetzen]

I remember seeing a presentation on the new cell phones in Houston about a year before they became operational. The hand held one was a little larger than a normal hardback book, weighed at least a couple of pounds and cost about 10K. The battery life was about 1 hour and the air time was about $2 a minute. My thoughts were that the guy trying to sell this stuff had been smoking a controlled substance if he thought it would ever catch on. Today my 7 year old grandson has a cell phone with more computer power than most main frame computers had back then, it is a hand me down from one of his 10 year old sisters, I can't even figure out how to turn in on let along use it.

Nothing in the future would surprise me.

[pulltabMiner]

Some great stuff said already.

Here is my ever humble opinion:

Don't underestimate human inventiveness.

I think Vethraxx and Schetzen are on to something when they talk about computing. We may not have yet reached the limit of the information the magnetic signal coming back from a target is giving us. Remember the ultrasound signal? For a long time all we got were those fuzzy, undefined pictures that only the technician seemed to see clearly until someone figured out how to squeeze more info out of the signal and now we have those 3-D ultrasound pictures. It's all about processing power.

More research will play a role. Better algorithms. More power, as Cpt. Kirk said.

I am hopeful that someday we will find a way to target the gold in gold jewelry and hone in on it.

I am an optimist when it comes to humans figuring out things. And then, as Rudy pointed out, we may make that paradigm shift and find a totally new way to look at the stuff under the ground.

[steve in so az]

Being realistic - how many holes are you willing to dig that go down 18-20 inches or so ? After a few poor results one would back off the depth I would think. Steve in so az