CZ3D au21x Mod Demo of Discing Gold Out of Foil

Français Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
....
> That op shows us a target in gold and aluminum wit
> h the same TID,.....

I guarantee you that the 10 or 12 items shown in his video (gold vs aluminum) did NOT have the "Same TID".

Well let me re-phrase that : For purposes of the CZ, .... sure, they had the "same TID". That's because the CZ's have broad grouping categories (of only 6 or 7 lumped categories). But if you put those 10 or 12 targets onto a machine like the Spectrum, CTX, etc.... : There would indeed be subtle TID differences between them.

I interpreted Tom D's post to say that the AU-21X has some density based discrimination ability that can work within a specific conductive spectrum that can provide 21x trash relief within that specific spectrum.

I interpreted Tom in CA's post to say that he can replicate density discrimination by simply using normal, everyday notch discrimination programs. But he can't do it anytime soon 'cause his willy is wilted.

sorry.....the wilted willy comment was too funny and I had to replay it.

Density and phase shift are different in that frequency comes into greater play. High frequency will scream on low density targets, while low frequency may not report on a low density target at all. Since the CZ operates at both 5 kHz and 15 kHz there is a limited window where frequency comparisons can be made at a density level.

The Whites V3 offers density discrimination within the same spectrum but it requires more screen watching.

Good thread.

HH
Mike

Mike Hillis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I interpreted Tom D's post to say that the AU-21X
> has some density based discrimination ability ....

Let's assume that we have 2 objects: a piece of foil, and a gold charm that .... for sake of discussion, might have IDENTICAL TID's. Or ... identical enough, that traditional notching would not separate the two items . HOWEVER : It is true that the gold item will be more "dense" than the foil item. Given the weight and space it occupies.

But I don't know of any technology, short of taking them of of the ground and weighing them , that can measure "density" .

Well, I shouldn't say that the technology doesn't exist. It does. But you have to x-ray it, wear a lead suit, have a receiving unit on the opposite side of the object, etc.... The CZ is a metal detector. Pure & simple. It's not measuring/weighing density.

Rick...……. Dave created a (at the time..... unsuspecting) legend with the advent of the CZ platform. He was 'frustrated' with the release of the CZ...… as he was not ready/complete yet. Yet/however...… even with the (incomplete) released version...…. it would become a 'bench' unto which many would 'basis' off of. Even to this day...…. 3-Decades later. (((If only to resurrect CZX notion; yet, on a tangent thought-process))).

Tom...… the greater the opposition/resistance/fight...……. the greater the outward expression of 'passion'. This is how progress is made. And...… if a T2/F75/Impact presents a 0-99 hair-splitting scale for ID (and subsequent discrimination); yet, only a 10X to 14X improvement in trash-or-gold ID (with this modern technology) prevails...….. then a 21X improvement resides within the body of a paradigm-shift.....to...…paradox. If current-day technology is only looking at 2 different dimensions for ID purposes; yet, a (unknowing/unforeseen) 3rd dimension were to epiphany-exist/prevail...….. we have forged & paved technological advancement. I merely expose and facilitate this 3rd dimension …. with the advent of the Au-21X..... 15 years ago. I have outwardly expressed my semi-lengthy thought-process.... (for the past 13 years) on this forum...…. if you care to bask yourself in my boring writings! (((Gold jewelry = low conductivity/HIGH-density. --- Aluminum foil = low conductivity/LOW-density signature-to-hull-emitter-correlation...… which can somewhat be seen/witnessed/traced on a O-Scope))).

Sounds like this AU21x mod is behaving like one of
the Tesoro Golden series detectors with adjustable tone break

If you have a piece of foil and a gold ring that IDs or discs
out lower than the foil you can set the tone break where the
higherID piece of foil low tones while the ring tries to cross into
the higher tone. Not sure that it’s density related?? Probably
more to do with the ring shape?

Granted there’s so much trash most places and the variety
of trash and ring size/weight make it a moot point. The best
technique for gold is to dig everything in a likely spot!!!

I sort of disagree....... NO ONE digs everything. We hear things we pass up...... maybe not even realizing it. There are obvious on a beach ...... mostly shallow that i have no problem leaving for those curious bottle cap diggers. I know a couple of guys ..... that try to dig it all...... upward of 250 targets each hunt. Yet they use a VLF...... why? Much like those going to the beach looking for gold...... so they say. But digging targets clearly not in the gold range...... why curiosity? Which turns out to be a time waster.... especially if your time is limited OR its recent drop time. Even those who believe they are digging it all ... will admit they likely passed on targets..... maybe they should have dug.

Im not so sure density isnt playing a part in this. I think a couple of folks noticed the MDT may be using some density disc/notching on foil and Tom seems to have confirmed that in his reply above. Which seems to be what people want....... a ring machine..... not a small or tiny gold machine. It appears DEPTH is important to most over sensitivity at a lessor depth when it comes to gold.

I sort of disagree....... NO ONE digs everything. We hear things we pass up...... maybe not even realizing it. There are obvious targets on a beach ...... mostly shallow that i have no problem leaving for those curious bottle cap diggers. I know a couple of guys ..... that try to dig it all...... upward of 250 targets each hunt. Yet they use a VLF...... why? Much like those going to the beach looking for gold...... so they say. But digging targets clearly not in the gold range...... why.... curiosity? This turns out to be a time waster.... especially if your time is limited OR its recent drop time. Even those who believe they are digging it all ... will admit they likely passed on targets..... maybe they should have dug.

Im not so sure density isnt playing a part in this. I think a couple of folks noticed the MDT may be using some density disc/notching on foil and Tom seems to have confirmed that in his reply above. This seems to be what people want....... a ring machine..... not a small or tiny gold machine. It appears DEPTH is important to most over sensitivity at a lessor depth when it comes to gold.

Metal detectors can measure 'density' by hitting the object with a sequence of frequencies, low to high, and measuring the intensity of the return responses for each of the frequencies used. That is exactly what I see returned on the V3 spectragraph in 3 frequency Best Data operation.

The greater the density of the object, the more eddy current generation occurs at the lower frequency, thereby showing more intensity in the return signal.

It is fairly common for light foils to show very strong intensity signals for the 22.5 kHz frequency, and none at all, to very low intensity responses for the low 2.5 kHz responses.

From a visual aspect, no other detector on the market can do this, The trick,as I see it, is to put this into audio. I haven't attempted that yet but have been giving it some thought.

However I only see this working at the very low end of the conductive spectrum as once you move into, say, pie plate thickness aluminum, the eddy current generation would be too robust at low frequency to accurate use it as a disc tool.

HH
Mike

Mike Hillis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .... That is
> exactly what I see returned on the V3 spectragraph
> in 3 frequency Best Data operation.
>
>

To whatever extent this qualifies as "measuring density", it all sort of reminds me of this :

Way back when (if any of you are on the ugly side of 50 like I am), you remember when the Whites Spectrum was introduced. Which gave way to the XLT. Remember the wonderful graph "smear" it had ? And every single item had a different "signature". With different peaks, spreads, etc.... Right ?

Well even back then: It was likewise mused that various targets (gold vs aluminum) would have traits that could be discerned . I'm guessing that "density" was one of them ? But I could be wrong.

There were guys, back then, that studied themselves silly , passing 100's of objects in front of the machine. To see if gold items had traits that aluminum didn't have, and vice-versa.

Well guess what ? There was no learnable difference between gold and aluminum, other than "notching" and "ring enhancement". In other words: To the extent that ... yes ... you could find differences in isolated aluminum vs gold items, well SO TOO could you find equal # of differences between each two aluminum items. And each two gold items. It was never ending.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2019 05:25PM by Tom_in_CA.

Tom, we test against the tech we have available at the time. As tech changes, we test again.

Multi-frequency operation has opened the door for greater discrimination abilities at different levels than we could get from a single frequency detector. Simultaneous/sequential multi-frequency operation allows comparisons of multi-frequency responses that can provide things such as density checks within a certain spectrum and homogeneous checks between frequency responses,

Frankly I find it baffling that metal detector manufactures are still relying on simple phase shift responses for discrimination choices when so much more target information is available in simultaneous multi-frequency comparisons for discrimination choices. Whites has proved we can do three frequencies at the same time and are currently the only one letting us do this and make disc choices off of them.

What if detector manufacturers are forced to cater to the primary generation using the equipment. And that generation is technically biased to the point that it can't support the new tech that is available because they can't understand it, thereby limiting the mfg to whatever they can put into a generational user interface.

HH
Mike

Mike Hillis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Frankly I find it baffling that metal detector man
> ufactures are still relying on simple phase shift
> responses for discrimination choices ...

Correct. Despite the wonderful advances of electronics & 'puters in detectors : The method used to tell-targets-apart has not changed . It's still based on conductivity (phase shift responses). Oh sure, it gets *super refined* more-than-the-old-days. Granted. But is still conductivity none-the-less. Which, as we all know : alloyed gold and aluminum share the same conductive characteristics

Yes, gold & aluminum don't share the same density. But machines today (even the CZ) are NOT measuring density

Density may be the wrong word, Tom.

Perhaps a better word would be skin effect eddy current depth potential. High density items have more skin effect depth potential than low density items. This difference can be exploited by frequency comparisons.

depthcurrentdensity


HH
Mike



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2019 07:01PM by Mike Hillis.

Mike Hillis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom, we test against the tech we have available at
> the time. As tech changes, we test again.
>
> Multi-frequency operation has opened the door for
> greater discrimination abilities at different leve
> ls than we could get from a single frequency detec
> tor. Simultaneous/sequential multi-frequency ope
> ration allows comparisons of multi-frequency respo
> nses that can provide things such as density check
> s within a certain spectrum and homogeneous
> checks between frequency responses,
>
> Frankly I find it baffling that metal detector man
> ufactures are still relying on simple phase shift
> responses for discrimination choices when so much
> more target information is available in simultaneo
> us multi-frequency comparisons for discrimination
> choices. Whites has proved we can do three freque
> ncies at the same time and are currently the only
> one letting us do this and make disc choices off o
> f them.
>
> What if detector manufacturers are forced to cater
> to the primary generation using the equipment. An
> d that generation is technically biased to the poi
> nt that it can't support the new tech that is avai
> lable because they can't understand it, thereby li
> miting the mfg to whatever they can put into a gen
> erational user interface.
>
> HH
> Mike


Mike,

On a discussion a while back regarding multi-frequency detectors, it was brought to everyone's attention that the Minelab MF detectors prior to the Equinox were not SMF MF detectors, more of a sequential pulse technology cycling thru frequencies. The Equinox is a true SMF detector. Do you know if the White's V3i is a true SMF detector, or is it quickly sequencing thru the three frequencies like the CTX/Etrac/Explorer/ETC machines?

The V3i was really quite ahead of it's time, it's really a damn shame White's didn't continue to develop it (and we all know why), because imagine what Carl and team could have done with that platform with continuous development and technological improvements. When it was newer I had a couple of friends that got damn good at being able to tell aluminum from coins and gold with that frequency response graph (forget the name of that feature?).

HH,
Brian

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
.... When it was newer I had a couple of fri
> ends that got damn good at being able to tell alum
> inum from coins and gold with that frequency respo
> nse graph (forget the name of that feature?).
>

Question : What would you consider "damn good", at telling aluminum apart from gold ? For your friends with the V3i who had gotten "damn good" at it. For example, if you turned them loose in a junky turf zone ( like the panhandle @ GGP, ) : What do you think their ratios are going to be ?

Because I have heard this before (persons and/or machine that supposedly have made for damn good odds). Yet when you invite those persons/machines out to a junky test zone ..... we begin to hear the sound of crickets. I have heard the claim by many sincere people. But at the end of the day, it's just random odds and they decline to show you this skill they've supposedly mastered.

I might be wrong, so .... do tell : If those friends of yours were taken to a blighted junky park, what do you think their ratios would be ? And could the same odds be obtained by simply doing some ring-enhancement programs (notches) on any # of other TID machines ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2019 08:32PM by Tom_in_CA.

Hi Brian,
I remember a big dust up over the V3 frequency....was it a true 3F SMF or was it sequential 3F MF. If I recall right, Carl clarified that it was indeed a true 3F SMF. I think it is the only detector in existence using more than 2 frequencies at the same time.

HH
Mike.

Mike Hillis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Metal detectors can measure 'density' by hitting t
> he object with a sequence of frequencies, low to h
> igh, and measuring the intensity of the return res
> ponses for each of the frequencies used. That is
> exactly what I see returned on the V3 spectragraph
> in 3 frequency Best Data operation.
>

> HH
> Mike

Remember a lot of talk about this possibility back when that detector was new. On the surface of the argument, it sounds very likely to work. But for all the talk and all the testing, the idea died quickly. I guess non of the testers found it to be valid (or they just didnt test enough)

The idea came up again when the Equinox dropped, but then we found out minelab "normalized" the responses across the frequencies. There is still shifts across the frequencies, but only on outlier targets on the verge of being an "error" response.

======================================================

You can see my videos here: [www.youtube.com]
My blog is here: [thesilverfiend.com]

======================================================

silverfiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> ..... Remember a lot of talk about this possibility back
> when that detector was new. On the surface of the
> argument, it sounds very likely to work. But for
> all the talk and all the testing, the idea died qu
> ickly. I guess non of the testers found it to be
> valid (or they just didnt test enough)
>

This was my recollection as well. But Cal-Cobra says someone(s) supposedly got good at it. I would sure like to know what "good" means in that context. Because .... if in actual testing and trying and trying, you end up with hundreds of aluminum objects before getting a gold ring, then I'd call that random eventual chance odds. That could be done with a lot of different machines.

And for purposes of the test location : Let's assume junky turf. Because if it were done @ the beach, it's already a "given" that the ring ratios are way-much-better, out-the-starting gate. And it's already a "given" that md'rs are "digging all" on the beach. Thus for purposes of discussion, let's assume junky turf. Where .... you could go psycho trying unless you employed a bit of cherry-picking selectivity .

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cal_cobra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> .... When it was newer I had a couple of fri
> > ends that got damn good at being able to tell al
> um
> > inum from coins and gold with that frequency res
> po
> > nse graph (forget the name of that feature?).
> >
>
> Question : What would you consider "damn good",
> at telling aluminum apart from gold ? For your f
> riends with the V3i who had gotten "damn good" at
> it. For example, if you turned them loose in a j
> unky turf zone ( like the panhandle @ GGP, ) : Wh
> at do you think their ratios are going to be ?
>
> Because I have heard this before (persons and/or m
> achine that supposedly have made for damn good odd
> s). Yet when you invite those persons/machines ou
> t to a junky test zone ..... we begin to hear the
> sound of crickets. I have heard the claim by man
> y sincere people. But at the end of the day, it'
> s just random odds and they decline to show you th
> is skill they've supposedly mastered.
>
> I might be wrong, so .... do tell : If those frie
> nds of yours were taken to a blighted junky park,
> what do you think their ratios would be ? And co
> uld the same odds be obtained by simply doing some
> ring-enhancement programs (notches) on any # of ot
> her TID machines ?

Junky turf parks in Oakland, is that junky enough for you?

Ray (you know Ray) and his late friend Rich were really good with the V3(i). Ray was a beta tester for White's so he really knew the V3(i) inside and out, I was very impressed when he'd call aluminum looking at the frequency comparison graph, was almost always spot on.

Mike Hillis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Brian,
> I remember a big dust up over the V3 frequency....
> was it a true 3F SMF or was it sequential 3F MF.
> If I recall right, Carl clarified that it was inde
> ed a true 3F SMF. I think it is the only detector
> in existence using more than 2 frequencies at the
> same time.
>
> HH
> Mike.

Hi Mike,

That's impressive. Hopefully Carl and Dave are working out a new SMF detector at FTP, tons of potential there.

HH,
Brian

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>,.... I was very impressed when he'd call aluminum
> looking at the frequency comparison graph, was alm
> ost always spot on.

Good old Ray.

Really ? You were "very impressed" by his being "almost always spot on" ? Heck, I'll even grant 99% "spot on accurate" too. All I have to do is guess "aluminum" every single time. And guess what : I'll be 99% accurate . That would make me pretty damned good. Right ?

Brian-cobra: Let's just cut to the chase : I'll offer you the same challenge I've offered before to similar claimants : If you think that A) a certain machine, or B ) a certain "mod", or C) a certain zen-like status of discerning sounds can : D) enable you or someone to tell aluminum apart from gold , then : E) WONDERFUL : Meet me at the GGP panhandle or junky Oakland parks, and ............. let's try it out. Show me. And alas, guess what ? We will hear the sound of crickets.

But I can already perceive the push-backs: "Well gee, it's not perfect". Sure. We can all acknowlege/accept that. Ok, 1 in 30 ? 1 in 50 ? 1 in 500 ? At what point does it become random odds and .......... gee ........ I guess you're not telling aluminum apart-from-gold ?

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cal_cobra Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >,.... I was very impressed when he'd call alumi
> num
> > looking at the frequency comparison graph, was a
> lm
> > ost always spot on.
>
> Good old Ray.
>
> Really ? You were "very impressed" by his b
> eing "almost always spot on" ? Hec
> k, I'll even grant 99% "spot on accurate" too. A
> ll I have to do is guess "aluminum" every single t
> ime. And guess what : I'll be 99% accurate .
> That would make me pretty damned good. Right ?
>
> Brian-cobra: Let's just cut to the chase : I'll
> offer you the same challenge I've offered before t
> o similar claimants : If you think that A) a cer
> tain machine, or B ) a certain "mod", or C) a
> certain zen-like status of discerning sounds can :
> D) enable you or someone to tell aluminum apart fr
> om gold , then : E) WONDERFUL : Meet me at the
> GGP panhandle or junky Oakland parks, and ........
> ..... let's try it out. Show me. And alas, gues
> s what ? We will hear the sound of crickets.
>
> But I can already perceive the push-backs: "Well
> gee, it's not perfect". Sure. We can all acknowl
> ege/accept that. Ok, 1 in 30 ? 1 in 50 ? 1 in
> 500 ? At what point does it become random odds an
> d .......... gee ........ I guess you're not telli
> ng aluminum apart-from-gold ?


You sir are one stubborn SOB, never satisfied until you have the last word.

Ray (aka NightRay) is a damn good detectorist, he wasn't guessing, he was able to use the frequency graphing function to analyze a target - pull-tabs and foil leave a different visual signature then coins and jewelry, simple as that.

At any rate, I'm done with this thread, utter waste of time, next!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2019 03:41PM by Cal_cobra.

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>t - pull-tabs
> and foil leave a different visual signature then c
> oins and jewelry, simple as that.
>
>


Yup. And guess what that's called ? : Ring-enhancement programs and notching .

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom_in_CA Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Cal_cobra Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > >
> > >,.... I was very impressed when he'd call alu
> mi
> > num
> > > looking at the frequency comparison graph, was
> a
> > lm
> > > ost always spot on.
> >
> > Good old Ray.
> >
> > Really ? You were "very impressed" by his
> b
> > eing "almost always spot on" ? H
> ec
> > k, I'll even grant 99% "spot on accurate" too.
> A
> > ll I have to do is guess "aluminum" every single
> t
> > ime. And guess what : I'll be 99% accurate .
> > That would make me pretty damned good. Right ?
> >
> > Brian-cobra: Let's just cut to the chase : I'l
> l
> > offer you the same challenge I've offered before
> t
> > o similar claimants : If you think that A) a c
> er
> > tain machine, or B ) a certain "mod", or C)
> a
> > certain zen-like status of discerning sounds can
> :
> > D) enable you or someone to tell aluminum apart
> fr
> > om gold , then : E) WONDERFUL : Meet me at t
> he
> > GGP panhandle or junky Oakland parks, and ......
> ..
> > ..... let's try it out. Show me. And alas, gu
> es
> > s what ? We will hear the sound of crickets.
> >
> > But I can already perceive the push-backs: "We
> ll
> > gee, it's not perfect". Sure. We can all ackno
> wl
> > ege/accept that. Ok, 1 in 30 ? 1 in 50 ? 1 i
> n
> > 500 ? At what point does it become random odds
> an
> > d .......... gee ........ I guess you're not tel
> li
> > ng aluminum apart-from-gold ?
>
>
> You sir are one stubborn SOB, never satisfied unti
> l you have the last word.
>
> Ray (aka NightRay) is a damn good detectorist, he
> wasn't guessing, he was able to use the frequency
> graphing function to analyze a target - pull-tabs
> and foil leave a different visual signature then c
> oins and jewelry, simple as that.
>
> At any rate, I'm done with this thread, utter wast
> e of time, next!


And the beat go’s on.....

TARSACCI - “Digging deeper, BEHIND the competition!”
[forums.tarsaccisales.com]