Iron Masking question

Tom, has any of the machines from Minelab and the MDT-8000 changed the ratio in the story you wrote about iron masking and why, thanks, I read the article yearly

I would definitely check out the last group of posts on the MDT8000 thread started by Tom. In fact I myself have been going thru all 40+ pages and have picked up a lot of great info.
Worth reading IMHO.
What machine are you currently using??

Others here like Tom are much more enlightened to talk on this subject. I will say that the process or method has been interesting to learn via the MDT. For me the ratio is not as important as understanding the "conversation" that is going on thru the headphones. That has been the amazing part as I start to grasp the power of the MDT and intelligence I am slowly gathering each and every time I get out there.

Peter

What was once impossible..... is now easy and obvious. BUT.......... if : You don't know...what you don't know........ it continues to appear/look impossible.
-Thomas Dankowski

I think iron masking is a bigger problem than many of us realize. The option to change the recovery speed on detectors like the Deus, ORX and Equinox have made it less of a problem but it's no where near resolved. This is especially true when you get iron above and next to good targets.

I've done many tests in my coin garden (my soil is moderately mineralized). If the targets are next to iron and on the same plain such as with the Monte Nail Board, not as much of an issue. But when you get a good target buried (not an air test) 2 plus inches deep and have a few nails above the target as much as 6 inches away (coil not even over the iron), the detector is blinded by the iron and can no longer see the deeper good target. Low conductor targets are even worse. Surprisingly, in this scenario I've witnessed the FBS and GPX machines better at picking these deeper targets out , but fail the nail board test miserably.

I convinced that better than 50% of the good targets at some of my nail ridden Military Camp sites, still remain in the ground.

If you mean the Beneath the Mask article which was written 20 years ago, yes a few things have happened since then in regard to iron masking.

One was the movement to high frequency detectors for improved target separation when working around iron. Gold machines are the unmasking kings.

Also as far as I can recall, things like adjustable recovery speed and Iron Bias didn't even exist back then.

There is probably more to say about it. Good question for Tom but he's been too busy to spend much time on the forum lately.

I don't think the MDT has much unmasking ability. Its thing is depth, especially in wet salt.

.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2019 01:01PM by Badger in NH.

Hi Caretaker...…… I've been meaning to answer this for quite some time now.

In a nutshell: NO.
However; it is 'known' (and "aware") within the community of detector Design Engineers.

But...……….. that being said...………….. what we HAVE done is...….. 1) envelop a tighter electromagnetic footprint emanating from the coil. 2) went back to higher Freq's. 3) Process data differently. There's other things that have changed; yet, only trace-element improvement(s) have ensued. There are principles of physics that cannot be altered/deviated from. The "BIG PICTURE" is: We are still utilizing electromagnetic energy...….injecting it into electromagnetic (ferromagnetic) iron.....,,,,,,, and trying to figure out how to NOT be inhibited (crippled) by this iron. In my (limited vision) eyes...… I believe a paradigm-shift is required ...in order to truly change this phenomenon.
With what we have done..... in the past 10 or 15 years...…. is go from about 2% unmasking abilities...…. to about 4% unmasking abilities. Yes..... this improvement is double...…. (and is a real eye-opener); yet, the big picture is: we still have 96% improvement to go.

One of the best ways to see (measure) how/if new technology has improved …...is: take the new-technology unit into a 'carpet-of-nails' site...…… grid off an area...….. and recover ALL non-ferrous targets...to the best of the new units capabilities. Compare this resultant to several other units. Then perform a Archaeological Phase-2 recovery pit dig..... so as to 'learn' the ""ratio"" of what you DID find with the detector...……. Vs...……. what you MISSED....via the Archie pit-dig. Typical numbers are: The metal detector found 4 non-ferrous targets. The Archie Phase-2 pit dig.....found another 171 non-ferrous targets. The ratio is 4:171..... and out of a area of...….say...…. 13' x 9'.
To this day...……….. folks do not know just how severe 'masking' truly is.

Minelab is the most forward-thinking ……… with plenty of funds available,...…. aggressive company...…. collectively...…. to date. The Equinox platform does indeed present a different approach … with its electronic engineering architect. When you can take the EQX equipped with the 11" coil...…. and go into carpets of nails...…. and find some non-ferrous targets.,.,.,.,.,.,. improvements certainly have been made....as compared to previous platforms. The -11" coil- ….. is the element that makes it surprising. Yes, the EQX is very specifically engineered/built around the 11" coil, yet, the other factory coils perform …… to stunning levels.

Tarsacci ……. while not the euphoric pinnacle at unmasking...…… certainly presents a paradigm-shift in how it handles bad minerals...…… and/or wet salt. In many applications...…. the Tarsacci MDT presents startling performance improvements that have never been seen/witnessed …. in our detecting history. In some (common) applications...…. the MDT is outperforming the pulse induction units. The MDT is starting to sweep-the-markets...…. and flip the Mfr C.D.E.'s up-side-down. It is (quietly) really starting to "catch-on". Just don't take the MDT into carpets of nails.

Nokta/Makro……. is the fastest growing company...…… and with VERY good unmaskers; yet, still confined within that 2% - 4% laws of physics.

Caretaker: Once again...…… in a nutshell: NO.