As Years go by.....

As I accrue more years/decades of detecting...…… something near-and-dear to my hunger/desire..... comes full-circle.

IRON

1) It is paramount for a detector to PROPERLY ID Fe/iron targets. (And has always been a requirement/importance … in the past).
2) It has become even more important for a detector to identify the specific CONDUCTIVITY of that specific iron item ALSO. 'Low' iron range. 'Medium' iron range. 'High' iron range. "WHERE" in the iron-conductivity iron range … does the implement(s) reside. This requirement/quest has become more important....in recent years. ESPECIALLY in the wet-salt environment.
Today...…. some detectors do a fairly good job …. with such quest.

Tom,

Good POINT
- iron is a nuisance.

When I was lucky enough to address the design team in Adelaide when we were finalising the CTX in 2011, the "two main core elements" of my Presentation were:
1. Ferrous recognition
2. Differentiate gold from aluminium.

Thus far, no one has managed to do either or.

Des

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I accrue more years/decades of detecting...…… s
> omething near-and-dear to my hunger/desire..... co
> mes full-circle.
>
> IRON
>
> 1) It is paramount for a detector to PROPERLY ID F
> e/iron targets. (And has always been a requirement
> /importance … in the past).
> 2) It has become even more important for a detecto
> r to identify the specific CONDUCTIVITY of that sp
> ecific iron item ALSO. 'Low' iron range. 'Medium'
> iron range. 'High' iron range. "WHERE" in the iro
> n-conductivity iron range … does the implement(s)
> reside. This requirement/quest has become more imp
> ortant....in recent years. ESPECIALLY in the wet-s
> alt environment.
> Today...…. some detectors do a fairly good job ….
> with such quest.


Tom-----Which detectors/coil combos presently does the best job at this (IYO)?

D&P-OR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NASA-Tom Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As I accrue more years/decades of detecting...……
> s
> > omething near-and-dear to my hunger/desire.....
> co
> > mes full-circle.
> >
> > IRON
> >
> > 1) It is paramount for a detector to PROPERLY ID
> F
> > e/iron targets. (And has always been a requireme
> nt
> > /importance … in the past).
> > 2) It has become even more important for a detec
> to
> > r to identify the specific CONDUCTIVITY of that
> sp
> > ecific iron item ALSO. 'Low' iron range. 'Medium
> '
> > iron range. 'High' iron range. "WHERE" in the i
> ro
> > n-conductivity iron range … does the implement(s
> )
> > reside. This requirement/quest has become more i
> mp
> > ortant....in recent years. ESPECIALLY in the wet
> -s
> > alt environment.
> > Today...…. some detectors do a fairly good job …
> .
> > with such quest.
>
>
> Tom-----Which detectors/coil combos presently does
> the best job at this (IYO)?

I think this is a "read between the lines" on the latest offering of a certain manufacturer that like to keep things under wraps.

So it's like a Forrest Fenn riddle ? The answer isn't simply the last word of Tom's post? HeHe.

Two things aren’t clear to me about this.

Why is this important?

How does it differ from the information presented by numerical VDI readout?

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold

Maybe because the high iron range is close to aluminum=could possibly be... gold, in a salt environment. The low iron range is more likely to be 'iron'. I did say maybe because I'm not really sure what Tom D. is really on to.....just guessing.

Des..... how much better would have the NOX been had they used the smartscreen? It did so some tracking of iron and separating it....... even if it was just a second dot on a graph. I rarely looked at the digits on the CTX..... some like the jumpy numbers, i prefer the BIGGER picture the smartscreen painted.

dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Des..... how much better would have the NOX been h
> ad they used the smartscreen? It did so some tra
> cking of iron and separating it....... even if it
> was just a second dot on a graph. I rarely looked
> at the digits on the CTX..... some like the jumpy
> numbers, i prefer the BIGGER picture the smartscre
> en painted.

A smartscreen has the ability to present a lot more data than simply a single number. For example, the CTX lets you see pretty much exactly what the detector is seeing, whether the target is a nice tight grouping of signals, or whether it's a smear of many conductivities, or even whether it's two distinct clusters representing two targets under the coil. Another example is the White's "spectragraph," showing much the same information. Ever since the days 20+ years ago when I used a White's XLT, I have not been able to live without the extra information that is available from a "smartscreen." Lack of more visual information being presented was the biggest shortcoming of the Equinox for me and why I didn't keep it.

A single double-digit number is really dumbing down the detector, with audio the only remaining way to tell info about the target - simpler and easier to use for beginners, but really limits the advanced user. Multi-IQ is a good technology, but I'm waiting until they put a smartscreen on it to jump back on the bandwagon. Good points, Dewcon.

I totally agree it got shackled without the smartscreen. I remember using the Explorers.... before they changed it on the ET. You could see a deep nickel ..... go from most would to the lower right corner. It got better with the ET/CTX reducing the learning curve out of the box. Now ..... we took a step or two backward with the single digit especially since they are so tight in the gold range. I believe the smartscreen was worth having ....... and tweaking again. It would really clean up a lot of TID issues...... especially on iron targets. it would be interesting to see how targets were really falling on a smartscreen compared to a CTX.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2018 10:20AM by dewcon4414.

Iron ID, going back to the topic, is where the smartscreen really helps. Yes, you can also get similar information from the audio if you know what to look for, but even then, the machine can't present as much real-time information on what it is seeing as a smartscreen can in one or more sweeps. And you can sometimes get useful target information from how the numerical VDI bounces around, especially with lots of experience, but there's no substitute for a good smartscreen. That plus good audio, and lots of experience with that particular machine, and you're in business.

Back when we were using the metered TID machines in the 1980's, that's what an experienced operator was doing when he learned how to get useful target information by how the needle bounced - in effect he was creating a mental smartscreen of sorts by recognizing how the needle would bounce on certain targets. Nice consistent reading sweep after sweep. A bounce between two specific meeter readings. Random bouncing readings but bracketed by a certain high and low range. And so forth. What the XLT did that was so groundbreaking, is that it did the mental work for you by keeping track of the "meter" readings, if you will, and reacting much faster than a mechanicial meter could, and giving the user a lot of good useful visual information. This was a huge leap forward. Why subsequent detectors went back to a numerical-only TID system is a msytery. Two steps back, from what we already had 20 years ago. Now maybe if the numerical readout was instantaneously super-fast and could change in a fraction of a second, so it could show all the different individual VDI readings, but that would be very unstable and hard to interpret for most users.

I think the reason so many detectors went to a numerical-only readout, was stricty marketing: making it easy for beginners, keeping it simple with less information for them to process. Come to think of it, I only have "smart" screen detectors anymore. V3i, XL Pro, and MXT (with its confidence bars). All the number-only detectors I've had, I've gotten rid of, even though some of them were quite good detectors. The Gold Bug Pro comes to mind.

Give the user all the tools that technology allows except for on the very basic entry-level machines. That's why I consider the Equinox to be entry-level, albeit a very good detector.

And coming full circle, smartscreens are really helpful for Iron ID.

Edit: As Mike pointed out, a smart screen can't work miracles. All targets go to iron past a certain depth where the detector is simply just not capable of determining phase shift. But still, the smart screen gives you a visual indication of as much raw data as possible of what the detector is seeing, which is useful even on deep fringe targets. No miracles, though. Physics is physics. The smart screen just lets the operator see for himself as much of the raw data as possible to make the dig/no-dig decision.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2018 01:53PM by wayfarer.

Comparing pricing.....how much are you willing to pay for the smart screen? I realize target ID is very important. And to some more important than others. There are other options that we all like and constantly talk about as well. Expanded VDI scales. The two number system of FBS units. Instead of releasing multiple versions of detectors with the only difference a 5 kHz leap in frequencies.....Manufacturers should offer options that help with target ID. As I consistently mention in my posts we all want that multi frequency detector that is light and waterproof. But I am a beach hunter......i just need to tell iron from conductive. Bottle caps and Bobby pins are my nemesis. Getting back to Tom's thought......The more we in the hobby try to squeeze the good targets from the declining hunting grounds the more iron becomes a problem. We are being systematically pushed to the polluted iron fields and deep iron that is harder to identify. The easy stuff is gone for the most part. Either hunted out or developed. Not incorporating the best iron ID technology on a dirt machine is just irresponsible.

good post(s)

thanks

Wayne

sd



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2018 11:22PM by Rick, N. MI.

But not all iron is "bad" iron. What if you are looking for iron relics in iron "trash"? How do you identify good iron from bad iron?

Second, all targets revert to iron responses once id depth is passed. For some of us it happens sooner than later. It would be nice to some how id ferrous iron responses from non-ferrous iron responses.

Some models allow a expanded iron disc range so that you can do some iron id. Some models hold the non-ferrous in the non-ferrous range longer than others. The CoinStrike was a good example of model that did both. It gave you 99 points of iron disc AND would hold high conductive non ferrous targets in the non-ferrous range longer than any other detector on the market. The V3 with it's span limit control does this too. The first Omega 8000 had pretty decent shallow iron discrimination ability for identifying good iron from trash iron. steel keys, alan wrenches, and other small tooks would read in the low thirtys, nails would stay around 08. bobby clips were high 30s.

The smart multi screens are affected by minerals just as much as the single freqs, only you can see the affect better. The Etrac in my ground, the shallow coins read high above the 12 FE line and the deeper coins read below the 12 FE line. Depending on the fill depth, Somewhere around 4 to 5 inches seems to be the cutover depth.

Tiny targets.....most iron disc demarcation isn't sharp. Its fuzzy. When you hunt for targets that hit inside that little fuzzy cut off you come up with little irregularly shaped low conductors, gold, and tiny weird shape foil. All read as iron but are not iron.

Good discussion.
HH
Mike

Mike Hillis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But not all iron is "bad" iron. What if you are
> looking for iron relics in iron "trash"? How do
> you identify good iron from bad iron?
>
> Second, all targets revert to iron responses once
> id depth is passed. For some of us it happens so
> oner than later. It would be nice to some how id
> ferrous iron responses from non-ferrous iron respo
> nses.
>
> Some models allow a expanded iron disc range so th
> at you can do some iron id. Some models hold the
> non-ferrous in the non-ferrous range longer than o
> thers. The CoinStrike was a good example of mode
> l that did both. It gave you 99 points of iron di
> sc AND would hold high conductive non ferrous targ
> ets in the non-ferrous range longer than any other
> detector on the market. The V3 with it's span lim
> it control does this too. The first Omega 8000 h
> ad pretty decent shallow iron discrimination abili
> ty for identifying good iron from trash iron. stee
> l keys, alan wrenches, and other small tooks would
> read in the low thirtys, nails would stay around 0
> 8. bobby clips were high 30s.
>
> The smart multi screens are affected by minerals j
> ust as much as the single freqs, only you can see
> the affect better. The Etrac in my ground, the s
> hallow coins read high above the 12 FE line and th
> e deeper coins read below the 12 FE line. Depend
> ing on the fill depth, Somewhere around 4 to 5 in
> ches seems to be the cutover depth.
>
> Tiny targets.....most iron disc demarcation isn't
> sharp. Its fuzzy. When you hunt for targets tha
> t hit inside that little fuzzy cut off you come up
> with little irregularly shaped low conductors, gol
> d, and tiny weird shape foil. All read as iron bu
> t are not iron.
>
> Good discussion.
> HH
> Mike

This is exactly what Tom is talking about in point 2. Basically, identifying nails from other iron objects. Properly "mapping out" the iron range so that when low conductives are at depth and register as iron, you will have more of an based on the TID.

It's coming to this. A better interpretation of the data provided by the machine. I envision screens filled with data. I know some don't like things too complex, however, as finds dwindle, we will need more and better tools to find good targets.

Not all ferrous items are iron either, although we call it all "iron" and try to lump it all into the same range. A lot of it is alloy metals and I think that accounts for why it can ID all over the scale.

I don't mind digging SOME iron but I want to be able to know it is ferrous. That's the trouble I have ran into with the Multi Kruzer, even with 19khz and 7" concentric coil. I find a lot of flat iron and other iron/steel items that read well into the mid to high conductor range. I noticed this especially when comparing the Nox and it to one another. I would get say a 78-80s signal on the Kruzer and the Nox might give a 4 to 8 single digit signal over it. In every case...it was a piece of iron. When I put the Nox in single frequency mode, it does the same thing and makes the flat iron jump into the 20s (coin range).

VERY GOOD thread direction! (For many underlying rationale).

Yes..... we can add the CTX smart-screen onto the Equinox if you would like...…. for a CTX MSRP of $2499.00. You Interested???

Directional premise: Fairly recently..... I found another .950/Platinum ring in the wet-salt. The signal-strength was quite strong. (Read: Not deep..... no challenge). ID was splattered. Ranging from -2 to +9 on the EQX. Properly Grnd Balanced...… wet-salt (will ID and) the "falses"... will ID as a -6 on EQX. My first two hits/sweeps were negative ID...… whereby...… any other beep/dig unit would have also simply audibly ID'd this target as IRON...… and I would have sailed right on down the beach. BUT...… with a iron ID collectively/in-concert-with a numerical ID that was well above most iron targets (albeit still numerically negative)..... caused me to lock up my brakes.... for further investigation. Then.... some of the ID's blipped positive (and a few more negatives).
Testing this ring with another unit (proto)…….. and the exact same ID occurrence ensues..... even to substantially greater depths.
These examples only START to display/present the criticality of the importance of iron ID SPECTRUM CONDUCTIVITY.

Now...………… on deep non-ferrous targets in bad ground...…..it is common for these targets to ID as 'iron'...……….. with "usually" a caveat...… to your advantage. With a healthy/proper ID SPECTRUM analyzation capability...…. these targets will ID on the UPPER END of the iron range. KEY! Clue #1..... for further investigation.

Yes...… agree. The inventor of the Coin$trike was really on to something …. with the ability to ID deeper non-Fe targets more properly/readily as a non-Fe target..... especially in black/magnetic dirt. A real eye-opener.

More to say...…. out of time.

I look for iron relics and love this thread great topic

A gold earring is so close to iron that most detectors will not here it. With the Nox, nails are out with tone break at -1. The earring I found id's at 1. My MK is set disc at 3, tone break at 6. That take out nails and earring id's at 5. So with the MK if want to get the earrings I have to turn tone break down and dig some nails.

Rick

Just dig more iron when relic hunting...I'm sure that way you may find a good target mixed in

LowBoy

TAKE A LITTLE TIME KICKBACK AND WATCH SOME OF MY DETECTING VIDEO'S BELOW ON YouTube

[www.youtube.com]

If you don’t dig it, then how are you going to know what you’re missing!
How can you have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat!

Tom.... we both know the CTX was over priced.... or is over priced. Id certainly pay $1400 for that smartscreen..... there was a LOT of info in that iron range that even you have to admit we arent getting from the limited single digit NOX. I NEVER allowed the smartscreen to determine a dig situation...... but it made me study more targets. As a beach hunter im looking for a target something that stops me...... thats why i hunt in AM. Ive gotten very good at saying ...... ha that a piece of iron jewelry not a bobbie pin.

Im not a fan of the NOX giving about the same sound on some DEEP good targets as say an explorer near the salt...... sounds a lot like minerals..... IMO the Sov did a better job on what those targets sounded like.

Im also not certain i like wrap around going into the second bin instead of in the high upper range like a good many machines running high sensitivity..... but if thats what has to happen to improve the gold range so be it. What i seem to get from this is just more noise in the bin that im concentrating on.

RUST....and bleed halo.

NASA-Tom,

Thanks for the post. Any time you have things to say, my ears perk up and listen.

I agree with you, Dew. To me, I would love, love, love, love -- and I mean LOVE -- to see an "Equinox 1000," with only TWO CHANGES incorporated in, versus the 800... 1.) add a two-digit FE/CO readout and a smartscreen, including cursor trace, and 2.) add a "VOLUME GAIN" adjustment that works exactly like it did on the FBS units, whereby the more you adjust gain downward, the "quieter" the very small and/or very deep targets are (and, the quieter the ground mineral feedback is). These two simple changes, and you would have what -- for me -- would be the PERFECT unit.

Make those two changes, call it a EQX 1000, and price it like the E-Trac (MSRP $1499), and allow it to be the E-Trac replacement...I would be all over that like hot cakes. And I think it would definitely be an improvement in terms of the iron discrimination that this thread was originally intended to discuss.

Steve

A bit hard for me to quantify. With a smart-screen...…. I'm not sure it would change my 'dig/no-dig' decision.

Steve, that sounds more like a "CTX4040" than any kind of Equinox. The FE/CO determination is not possible using the frequency transmissions that the Equinox uses. However it seems possible that the Equinox is able to mimic the Sov-thru-CTX waveform, albeit at a somewhat higher operating frequency. So one day there may be an Equinox that does "Multi-IQ" and "BBS+" in its mode choices.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2018 03:10PM by Pimento.

Interesting that the warts of a detector generate the best discussions. In this case the poor target id capability of the Equinox is generating a conversation about iron discrimination requirements.

The issue you are having with the Equinox, outside the condensed id scale itself, is that the phase TID scale doesn't match the frequency in use, resulting in poor target id. Basically, the Equinox needs the ability to select the phase TID scale to that matches each program's dominate weighted frequency. Instead you got a "one shoe fits all" TID scale that is poor across the board for everything.

You want to fix the Equinox target id, give it the ability to match the TID scale to the dominate weighed frequency of each program. That will give better definition to the low and high ends of the conductive and inductive ranges and result in better TID overall.

HH
Mike



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2018 05:43PM by Mike Hillis.

Pimento,

Interesting. Clearly, you know far better than I, but I would have thought that the ability to determine "FE/CO" information would be possible with the Equinox/Multi-IQ. My qualitative (but apparently flawed) presumptions regarding how FBS "works," so as to calculate and display FE and CO information, simply involved "comparisons," through software/algorithms, of the different receive signals originating from different-frequency transmit signals. I would have assumed that while Multi-IQ uses a different set of frequencies, the same sort of "comparative" data could be calculated through the right set of algorithms, so as to arrive at both FE and CO info. But, I'll take your word for it that this is not possible within Multi-IQ, as you certainly know better than I...

Assuming you are correct, that's unfortunate; I would sure hate to see FE/CO information be phased out over time, as the CTX ages...from my view, that type of information is too valuable to allow to become "extinct," with a reversion back to single-digit data only.

Steve

Mike --


I am not sure what you mean by "phase TID scale not matching the frequency weighting used in each particular mode."

Is the issue you are referring to, which is a bit over my head, related to the fact that TIDs are "normalized" across all modes -- i.e. a "13" in Park 1 is a "13" in Field 2? Are you saying that if the IDs were NOT normalized across modes, but instead were allowed to be different, for a given target, depending upon the mode (field mode, park mode, etc.) being selected, then they would be more "accurate?"

Steve

Steve,
Yes, you are understanding correctly. The Equinox frequency spans are very large for a target id scale, and the normalization across that wide spectrum affects the Target id. Each of the programs is weighted with a dominate frequency and each dominate frequency has an optimum id scale that affects both target id and overall performance, including depth. By cramming all of them into one scale that may or may not be normalized to one of the frequencies, you affect the entire performance of the detector. I'm sure the design engineers considered this and came up with a best for all alternative (the condensed scale) but the over all effect is that every program suffers from the same issue.

HH
Mike

Mike Hillis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting that the warts of a detector generate > the best discussions. In this case the poor target id capability of the Equinox is generating a conversation about iron discrimination requirements.
>
> The issue you are having with the Equinox, outside the condensed id scale itself, is that the phase TID scale doesn't match the frequency in use, resulting in poor target id. Basically, the Equinox needs the ability to select the phase TID scale to
> that matches each program's dominate weighted frequency. Instead you got a "one shoe fits all" TID scale that is poor across the board for everything.
>
> You want to fix the Equinox target id, give it the ability to match the TID scale to the dominate weighed frequency of each program. That will give better definition to the low and high ends of the conductive and inductive ranges and result in better TID overall.
>
> HH
> Mike

On the Impact and Multi Kruzer you can select a standardized scale that remains the same for all frequencies, or you can select a TID scale specific to the selected frequency.

I'm not sure I'd place the Equinox in the poor TID category, it actually seems to be above average from my experience, but I understand the point your making. The challenge here is that each operating mode (eight on the EQ800) would be scaled differently, and it would be a real PITA to learn eight different TID scales. I suppose one would likely gravitate to using only a couple of modes, so easier, but if users are using more it would be a headache to memorize all eight TID scales where likely targets would ID.

HH,
Brian