HOW MAKE A SERIOUS COMPARATIVE TESTS PROCEDURE

First rule Blind tests are mandatory to be serious.

Second rule if you do not agree refer to rule number 1

The purpose of this playground, and not to take into account the feeling of the prospector. It is too easy for a participant to indicate that he is correctly detecting the target. But in general he does not detect it or he thinks to detect it. It often detects a ground effect.

During our long experience and our meetings with prospectors at the beach, we realized that the prospector was often influenced by the pride placed in his detector. This is why we have implemented this drastic and non-falsifiable comparative tests procedure.

Of course for this test you have to be 2 people.
A person who hides targets and a person who tries to find them. The depth tests can be done simultaneously.

It is obvious that here are static tests. The reality is even more difficult! See for yourself the catastrophic results ....

Document here :

*******************************

[www.casimages.com]

*******************************



ALEXANDRE TARTAR
IMPULSE AQ / PHYSICIST ENGINEER



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2020 07:39AM by goldenretriever.

It would be interesting to know what detectors were used and which ones performed best.

The guy in the photo is using a Garrett which is not going to work as well as a detector designed to hunt wet sand.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2020 08:42AM by Badger in NH.

Count of correct answers: ferrous targets + 1pt / gold targets + 3pts.
Counting the wrong answers -1pt.

Note : Those who did not answer scored more points than those who were convinced

6 squares of 1 meter x 1 meter
Each square containing 10 boxes.

Possibility on each square to have 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 targets

Indicate whether there is a gold or iron target or a ground effect or iron mixed with gold, or nothing at all and do this for each of the boxes of all the squares.

Advantages :

- Impossible to lie
- Impossible to guess by chance (millions of possibilities)
- allows to compare the detectors on all the difficulties encountered.
- allows to perform depth tests simultaneously.

STATISTIC FILE HERE

*****************

[www.casimages.com]

*****************

There were 66 prospectors, and 48 prospectors abandoned.

Many PIs, BBS, VLF of all types have given up, there are not really detectors that have shown themselves to be brilliant.
The good mastery and experience of the prospectors meant that they were able to score more points.

Count of correct answers: ferrous targets + 1pt / gold targets + 3pts.
Counting the wrong answers -1pt.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2020 08:49AM by goldenretriever.

Interesting line up of detectors and unusual testing procedure.

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2020 09:01AM by Badger in NH.

We have tried something similar at our seeded freshwater beach hunt.
Amazing how many brands models detectors and operators could not ID any of the targets.
Surprised myself, I fell into that group using some high end detectors.
Granted there is some black magnetic sand mixed in the beach sand.

DeepTech Vista X with 3 search coils.
Works for me

The worst is the number of times someone told me there is something when there was nothing, the sand had not even moved ...

So now someone who buries a target at 35cm and tells me this detector detects it and that no, I can't believe it.
As long as he has not made blind tests, and that someone has hidden the targets for him without telling him where, we should not listen.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2020 11:24AM by goldenretriever.

"that the prospector was often influenced by the pride placed in his detector" This statement is so true..... how often have we had to sift thru who just bought the greatest and newest to determine if it would work for us. We get tons of comparison videos..... most we pick apart.... and generally because the person doing them is trying to convince us the machine is worth the purchase..... or old school is better than the new product.

So these guys have to CALL the target..... is that right? So for some because of pride ....they are guessing. Kind of like the old military rule when taking a test when in doubt Charlie out. Was there or should there be a requirement for how long this person has used that machine........or are we at that point testing his skills/settings hes always tended to use that he believes works? Skill set may have a lot to do with outcome. Also...in some cases should is the machine being tested designed for the targets/conditions being tested? Really interesting test.... and results.

It’s awesome that someone is taking the time and effort to do this testing in an effort to see what WORKS. I’m sure someone will pick it apart and find fault somewhere but it won’t be me, I think it’s a great idea for no other reason than to open people to the truth, whatever that may be.

Mitigation of variables.
Commendable intent.
Time/labor/manpower/money/resources: intense! (Large collaborative effort)!

Each individual human skillset(s) is a (nearly) non-mitigatable variable detriment.

If enough aggregate data is collected...….. the "%" of datum accuracy is enhanced.

It's very surprising that the G2, GBP, T2, AT Pro and a few others were able to compete at all against the multi frequency machines. Maybe I'm misunderstanding how the testing process works. I don't have time to delve into reading it at the moment.

Are the detectors listed in the test results typical of what people are using on the wet sand over there? The majority of the detectors tested are dirt machines which can't deal with salt very well.

.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2020 05:18PM by Badger in NH.

****

It’s a prospecting rally so there are a lot of people who don’t detect often at the beach. But there are at least 10% who detect regularly and they have not necessarily passed the tests.

Someone who has an excalibur does not detect on the land but at the beach only, or else he likes to whip himself!

****



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2020 07:57PM by goldenretriever.

Great test with all the variables.

Quote:"6 squares of 1 meter x 1 meter. Each square containing 10 boxes"
Is Alexandre setting us a mathematical puzzle, here ?

I'll have first guess: I make it 36 'boxes' in total, for each metre box. Total = 6 x 36 = 216 'squares'.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2020 08:05PM by Pimento.

I see only nine boxes per square.

.

Yes, 9 boxes. 10 counting the big box lol.

For those interested, I've taken the data from the French-run trials and tabulated it so the data can be displayed to provide visual information. Enjoy.

Apparently the majority of beach hunters over there are not into attending detecting Rally's. Either that or beach detecting isn't very popular.

Why aren't there more beach detectors in the test? Are those users the ones who abandoned it? Lol

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2020 12:54PM by Badger in NH.

I made a lot of videos. You have to see it to understand.
Among the people who have abandoned there is everything detectors, and also beach detectors, BBS, PI, etc ...

People had unlimited time for this test, some stayed 10 minutes per 1m square !

These people could not differentiate the ground effects of ferrous and rings, it was very destabilizing for them, although the targets were not buried deep. They did not know where the targets were. They preferred to say nothing so as not to lose points, because a bad answer -3 pts.

And in general when they arrived at the penultimate square they had not identified anything, so they gave up so as not to pass for imbeciles, it's that I think.

I did the tests in this area full of sea water

Drum row..... and what was you score? With what machine? -3 dats a lot off the test score. It als goes toward what I’ve been saying.... there’s a lot of gold not found already in the depth range of our detectors.

It is I who is buried the targets so it does not count ... I had a clean sound on each target and we could hear gold and iron at the same time in tone mode. But as I said, we cannot take it into account....

Drum row? Lol

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2020 10:11PM by Badger in NH.

dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Drum row..... and what was you score? With what
> machine? -3 dats a lot off the test score. It
> als goes toward what I’ve been saying.... there’s
> a lot of gold not found already in the depth range
> of our detectors.


Goldenretriever may have aced the test Dew. Lol