Regarding ground cancellation

for most of us? In low to moderate Fe soils can a VLF detector be "pushed" a bit for better sensitivity ie: better signal response on small/deeper targets regardless of the op frequency? What about filtering/differentation, is it still done in analogue or has it passed to the digital domain and if so, is it advancing the state of the newer VLF's?

Is VLF a dead end technology given what we are hearing about some of the new PI's on the horizon? The Finds PI forum a few years back threw out some ideas that appear to be showing up in some new designs but only (that we know of) from a few individuals. Are the bigger companies all working on balanced PI designs?

Tom



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2007 12:54PM by Jackpine.

Yes, In most applications, a VLF unit can be "pushed" a bit harder with more Sens in mild grnd. It is "ID accuracy" at depth that is most critical, as bad dirt is encountered,,,, and Sens is boosted. The higher the Fe concentrate.... the lesser the ID accuracy. Op Freq does matter; In general, a higher Op Freq will provide better stability and ID accuracy in bad dirt; however.....in general, at a lesser overall detection depth. Then enter another variable; "Depth" Vs. "Effective Depth". ....Bad dirt will attenuate EM energy quickly. Rob Peter/Pay Paul. Filtering adds more complexities; Possible enhancement for audible/intelligible data at a reduced/modified 'real-time' data presentation......possibly even losing data. On newer units...... yes, some filtering is digitally processed (mostly 16-bit....and rarely 32-bit).

P.I. = Should be the wave of the future (dry pun intended). However, I'd like to see us paradigm shift away from current electromagnetic-based platforms (and associated inherently flawed operating characteristics)..... to a different medium of detection (((and at a reduced cost))). Nuff said!

H.I.H.