A feature I would like to see on a detector.

Tom,

Just before I got my F75 I had the opportunity to hunt an open field (about 100 acres) a few times with my CZ70 PRO. On the last hunt I decided to wear my Garmin 305 Forerunner GPS and turn it on while detecting to get a feel for my “mileage” that I was putting in detecting and to see my grid patterns. I also used it to mark some waypoints on some of my finds. After a 6 hour hunt and 3.8 miles, I headed home and downloaded my GPS data. It was amazing to see what a sloppy job I did gridding.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a built in GPS that you could call up a screen in the field to see where you need to tighten up the grid and also mark all of your finds and then download it to you PC each day and save it to a master map on you PC and get a visual of your hunt and where you need to start the next time you hit that field?
I know that it would add a little bit of weight to the detector but really not that much. My 305 is more bulky than heavy. About as heavy as a wrist watch.
Since you are a data collector, what are your thoughts on that being a feature on a future detector?


Cuniagau

“Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear or a fool from any direction.”

Interesting post. Don't get discouraged by your inefficiency in surveying an exact grid. I did a simulation on the following scenario, which revealed that random searching came at a 14% cost over a perfect grid search. Imagine a 10,000 square foot lot that has only one target in it. If you can perfectly search one square foot every 3 seconds and never search a particular square more than once, how long, on average, would it take you to find the target? The answer is 8.3 hours.

Now, if you were to search this same lot with random searching, where you have some overlap and search some squares more than once, the average time it takes to find the target is 9.5 hours. Of course, the error rate on how long it takes you to find the target is quite large. My simulations showed that you could sometimes find the target in less than an hour and sometimes it took you nearly 60 hours. This is based on about 1000 independent search trials.

A 14% inefficiency is huge in a lot of applications, but if you're out enjoying the fresh air, and there are multiple targets in your area, it doesn't seem to matter that much. - Jim

Jim

The problem i see in your suggestion Ziphius, is that IF that was to happen, then a lot of people would have to pay for the added on software that your suggesting when they probably wouldn`t want it ,or to use it if it was there. To other people it would be an unnecessary gizmo they paid for, but won`t use. That i see is the problem.
Its like with an automobile. You are lucky in so much that you can buy the Car in stages,IE Basic model, Luxury model , Sports model. And people choose which model suits their requirements.
But you never know! Metal detector manufacturers have be known to do some strange things and they might one day do as you require.Best keep your fingers crossed they do.

> The problem i see in your suggestion Ziphius, is
> that IF that was to happen, then a lot of people
> would have to pay for the added on software that
> your suggesting when they probably wouldn`t want
> it ,or to use it if it was there.

It was Cuniagau's suggestion to have a built-in GPS. I was saying that it probably wouldn't help much, given that random searching only carries a 14% inefficiency penalty over grid-searching of the same patch of ground. Of course, if you have some information on a given site, such as the location of the home that was once there, doing a search grid of the historic activity area is better than random searching. HH - Jim

I wouldn't want to see detectors go the way of cell phones.You know a million features that nobody needs.
There is a detector out there now I believe from C-scope that has a built in transmitter for wireless headphones. As long as it doesn't compromise the operation
of the detector I think that would be a great addition.

turtleman

I `m sorry about that mistake I made Ziphius, I aplogise for my error.I must Pay attention in the mornings.


Turtleman. its the XP Goldmaxx that has the Built in Transmitter for Cordless headphones not CScope.

These are the latest model by XP the WS 3`s..[www.metaldetectorshop.co.uk]

these are the first ones they brought out but kept having problems with people snapping the band where it bends in two ,with a pivot hinge at the back of the headband ...........
[www.garysdetecting.co.uk]

These cordless headphones are brilliant with no signal lag whatsoever . The only thing is ,you can only use them with XP Detectors they are not possible to use them with any other make of detector unfortunately.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2009 09:13AM by Jeb.

For us civilians..... we are not allowed to have hair-splitting accuracy GPS. So, a GPS that does not have the capability to help the operator overlap his sweeps and also overlap his passes....would then.....only be a general guide to non-exacting waypoints.

In furtherance; DE's of metal detectors are not GPS engineers. This would require a commission between a GPS Mfr and the detector company. It would add much more cost, complexity and weight to the unit........ and, the bulk of the detecting community prefers K.I.S.S. Less than 5% of detectorists would purchase this feature.
I may like the concept, , , but I'm only ONE.

No problem Jeb. An interesting question to think about though.

Jeb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I `m sorry about that mistake I made Ziphius, I
> aplogise for my error.I must Pay attention in the
> mornings.