Better think again.
I have been running a Nokta Impact detector and a Xp Deus version 4 lately.
Some folks here may have been reading,,where I mention my detector proving grounds.
A couple small sites,,loaded with nails and iron dating back to the 1700s.
These 2 sites do seem to paint a pretty good picture for me as far as how a detector unmask and separates when in and around ferrous materials.
So what is the why's behind these sites,,,and could these sites be like some others here in the good ole USA???
When it comes to detecting,,we don't know what we don't know,,,what is beneath our coils as we sweep. Sure sometime we get ideas because we successfully recover a target. But this only paints a very small portion of the true overall picture.
So are your sites cleaned out??
Remember there is no Vlf detector I know of that can tell (give ID/vdi) of a heavily masked target in ferrous materials. Now detectors,,some can give us clues by way of audio that a suspect nonferrous target actually exist when nestled in the ferrous materials.
Some detectors by engineering and design do do a better job here of alerting a detectorist of a nonferrous finds comingled with ferrous materials.
A little math here to suggest just how real,,and difficult it would be to say a site has been extinguished of nonferrous materials by way of detecting.
First let's assume we have Detector named X,,this baby is the holy grail when it comes to separation and unmasking.
Let's assume,,in order for this detector to unmask/separate in a site like I described above,,,,the center of the coil in order for a spot to be considered depleted of nonferrous has to come over just one square inch of ground above the nonferrous target in the site.
Note the following,,a parcel of land .05 acres or 2,178 square feet.
This equates to a parcel containing 313,632 square inches.
Now remember this excercise here not in a perfect sense,,but readers should get the idea.
Next,,what about approach to target,,this is important,,,as angular approach to a masked target is changed,,,a detector will have fewer and better chances of responding to a masked target.
Let's say there are in a perfect world (detecting) 8 different angles of approach.
So 8 times 313,632= a grand total of 2,509,056.
This is the total number of possibilities using the data we assume,,and using the parcel of land we used.
How long would it take to to actually place the coil on a detector to achieve all these 2,509,056 possibilities??
When you are out detecting,,think about this.
Detecting in old sites loaded with iron,,can be boring,,,tiring,,and also successful.
A 2,178 sq foot piece of land not that big either.
This little exercise here,,,I hope it puts things better into perspective for you.
The detectors that are genuinely the better separators and unmaskers,,,they do have their place.
The numbers above support.
And here is the BIGGY,,ever monitor how we as humans sweep metal detectors??
Not in a straight line,,right,,,more of an arc.
So,,this arc,,is it even consistent.
So more error,,with arc of sweep,,,as well as variations in distances of sweep, not to mention sweep speed variations.
Btw this 1 inch used in this example,,very conservative number,,,could be smaller like 1/2" square.
And to think if you do in fact answer the calling here covering all of these possibility using your detector. What happens when you get a better separating/unmasking detector,,,this would mean to be sure area is ideally depleted of nonferrous,,,you would have to hunt again,,and again answer all possibilities of coil position and angular approach.
I can relate very much to ALL of the above,,,very real here,,this is not fictional by no means.
What this post is talking about,,,we may see a detector manufacturer try and develop a means where a person could in fact know moreso if they have in fact covered a parcel of land,,,with some type of navigational electronic approach.
Some thing like Minelab CTX does but more exact/precise. Showing actual physical coil coverage,,and this coverage based off the center of coil,,with a circular radius factored in.
Sound far fetched ???
Be careful what you ask for.
I have been running a Nokta Impact detector and a Xp Deus version 4 lately.
Some folks here may have been reading,,where I mention my detector proving grounds.
A couple small sites,,loaded with nails and iron dating back to the 1700s.
These 2 sites do seem to paint a pretty good picture for me as far as how a detector unmask and separates when in and around ferrous materials.
So what is the why's behind these sites,,,and could these sites be like some others here in the good ole USA???
When it comes to detecting,,we don't know what we don't know,,,what is beneath our coils as we sweep. Sure sometime we get ideas because we successfully recover a target. But this only paints a very small portion of the true overall picture.
So are your sites cleaned out??
Remember there is no Vlf detector I know of that can tell (give ID/vdi) of a heavily masked target in ferrous materials. Now detectors,,some can give us clues by way of audio that a suspect nonferrous target actually exist when nestled in the ferrous materials.
Some detectors by engineering and design do do a better job here of alerting a detectorist of a nonferrous finds comingled with ferrous materials.
A little math here to suggest just how real,,and difficult it would be to say a site has been extinguished of nonferrous materials by way of detecting.
First let's assume we have Detector named X,,this baby is the holy grail when it comes to separation and unmasking.
Let's assume,,in order for this detector to unmask/separate in a site like I described above,,,,the center of the coil in order for a spot to be considered depleted of nonferrous has to come over just one square inch of ground above the nonferrous target in the site.
Note the following,,a parcel of land .05 acres or 2,178 square feet.
This equates to a parcel containing 313,632 square inches.
Now remember this excercise here not in a perfect sense,,but readers should get the idea.
Next,,what about approach to target,,this is important,,,as angular approach to a masked target is changed,,,a detector will have fewer and better chances of responding to a masked target.
Let's say there are in a perfect world (detecting) 8 different angles of approach.
So 8 times 313,632= a grand total of 2,509,056.
This is the total number of possibilities using the data we assume,,and using the parcel of land we used.
How long would it take to to actually place the coil on a detector to achieve all these 2,509,056 possibilities??
When you are out detecting,,think about this.
Detecting in old sites loaded with iron,,can be boring,,,tiring,,and also successful.
A 2,178 sq foot piece of land not that big either.
This little exercise here,,,I hope it puts things better into perspective for you.
The detectors that are genuinely the better separators and unmaskers,,,they do have their place.
The numbers above support.
And here is the BIGGY,,ever monitor how we as humans sweep metal detectors??
Not in a straight line,,right,,,more of an arc.
So,,this arc,,is it even consistent.
So more error,,with arc of sweep,,,as well as variations in distances of sweep, not to mention sweep speed variations.
Btw this 1 inch used in this example,,very conservative number,,,could be smaller like 1/2" square.
And to think if you do in fact answer the calling here covering all of these possibility using your detector. What happens when you get a better separating/unmasking detector,,,this would mean to be sure area is ideally depleted of nonferrous,,,you would have to hunt again,,and again answer all possibilities of coil position and angular approach.
I can relate very much to ALL of the above,,,very real here,,this is not fictional by no means.
What this post is talking about,,,we may see a detector manufacturer try and develop a means where a person could in fact know moreso if they have in fact covered a parcel of land,,,with some type of navigational electronic approach.
Some thing like Minelab CTX does but more exact/precise. Showing actual physical coil coverage,,and this coverage based off the center of coil,,with a circular radius factored in.
Sound far fetched ???
Be careful what you ask for.
Last edited: