steveg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> j.t. -- I hear you; since I have two similar
> machines to what you asked about, and have ground
> conditions (red clay) that you describe being
> interested in (light to medium mineralized soil),
> I'll let you know once I find enough coins in iron
> trash, to feel that I can give an appraisal.
>
> My hopes with the air tests were that maybe you
> could get some "relative" depth info between the
> two platforms; however I mis-read your post, I
> think. You asked about "depth advantage" of the
> F75 over the G2, "in light to medium mineralized
> soil heavily iron laden." I thought you meant by
> "iron laden" that the soil's mineralization itself
> was primarily iron. I think though, by "heavily
> iron laden" that you meant "iron trash" laden. In
> that specific situation, then the info I gave you
> was next to useless. Air test results are
> obviously irrelevant when trying to ascertain how
> a machine will perform, depth-wise, in heavy iron
> TRASH. After reading Mr. D's G2 stuff in the
> "rcpt ack" thread, and reading your question, I
> now see what you were specifically asking, and so
> I didn't help you out any.
>
> TerraDigger -- it is on my list to do ALL KINDS of
> tests. I'm in the process of laying out a 32-coin
> test garden (clad and silver, all different
> depths); I have acquired six Colorado gold nuggets
> ranging in weight from roughly 1/4 oz. (I'm
> guessing) down to probably one-tenth of a gram or
> so, and I plan to do both air testing and
> in-ground testing on those; I will also do more
> extensive, outdoor air testing on all types of
> coins and jewelry -- all this with both machines.
> Finally, while doing so, I'll look back through
> your disc/gain stuff and do something similar. I
> plan to post all these results, for both machines.
> I may send you a PM, Terra, at some point here,
> if I have any questions about your methodology so
> as to repeat the conditions as nearly as possible
> (though EMI differences will make it somewhat
> apples-to-oranges).
>
> Sorry I couldn't help, j.t.
i thank you for the effort,however,as we both are aware,air tests are virtually meaningless
because you eliminate the "minerals" which are always present in the soil,rendering the "air
results 'suspect!"..i am positive,someone,or many perhaps, WILL eventually report the differences "in the ground"
between the two detectors under the "same" mineralized conditions!.again!..thanks for the reply!
(h.h.!)
j.t.