Welcome!
» Log In
» Create A New Profile
Keith Southern... what was your detector of choice in 2011?
Posted by possum mo
This forum is currently read only. You can not log in or make any changes. This is a temporary situation.
|
Re: Keith Southern... what was your detector of choice in 2011? January 02, 2012 11:18PM |
Keith...I feel the same way about you that I do NASA-Tom, from the perspective that an opportunity to spend a few hours hunting with you would be simply priceless!
Yes, I hear you on digging the iron. I'm happy to say that digging iron is not a problem for me
; I usually end up with at least a half dozen nails or other odd-shaped iron pieces in my pouch when hunting deep silver, so, while that drives me nuts, I guess it also means that I'm not doing things completely wrong! And yes, I think I may possibly understand why the bent nails will often sound better than straight ones -- is it the "eddy current" thing? In other words, a little "better" eddy currents generated on a "bent" nail than a straight one, making that piece of iron sound just a little better than a straight piece?
And I do see what you are saying now, about when there is nothing left to hear but iron sounds, that "fine tuning" can maybe allow you to eek out a few more goodies that sound "just not quite as bad" as the surrounding iron. I can understand this conceptually, though I can't IMAGINE being good enough to actually pull this off in the field! But, one other thing that causes me to pause a bit about this whole premise, and that is this...
IF a detector could theoretically ID, say, a 2" nail perfectly (at say, 14.0) -- no matter its orientation, depth, etc., and if all the nails at your site were of this 2" type, then I can see where setting your disc at 14 and hearing these nails, but setting it at 15 and hearing none of them, you might -- at that 15 disc. level, be inadvertently missing a good target that might be ID'd by your machine at 14.5, or whatever. BUT, my brain would think that in reality, the nails in a given site -- while many may register at 14, some would hit at 15 due to more rust or something, some may be longer, and thus register as 16, some may be 13 as they are sitting a bit more vertical than horizontal, one with a very slight bend in it may hit 17 or 18, one whose head was smashed more by the hammer than most others may read 14.7, and one that was 2" deeper than most others may read 11...in other words, in my mind, fine-tuning would indeed "change the equation" a bit, so to speak, but to me, with things much less homogenous than the ideal "nails read 14 but are gone with disc set at 15" scenario, my brain is still struggling to take this theoretical concept (fine tuning can "sort things out better" ) and understand how, IN THE FIELD, this fine tuning would actually be an advantage.
NOW -- I am sure my thinking is amateur, I really am; but nonetheless, that's how my inexperienced brain is looking at it. So, can you point out what I'm missing? This is a fascinating discussion, and I'd really like to understand this a little better...
And one other thing -- I sure do hope the tone of this is NOT, in any way, coming across as being "argumentative." That is totally not the case; this is simply my curiousity, and a realization that I have a lack of experience, and so I am asking these questions only to truly try and glean as much understanding as I can from that immense amount of info you have stored up there...
Steve
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2012 01:45AM by steveg.
Yes, I hear you on digging the iron. I'm happy to say that digging iron is not a problem for me
; I usually end up with at least a half dozen nails or other odd-shaped iron pieces in my pouch when hunting deep silver, so, while that drives me nuts, I guess it also means that I'm not doing things completely wrong! And yes, I think I may possibly understand why the bent nails will often sound better than straight ones -- is it the "eddy current" thing? In other words, a little "better" eddy currents generated on a "bent" nail than a straight one, making that piece of iron sound just a little better than a straight piece?
And I do see what you are saying now, about when there is nothing left to hear but iron sounds, that "fine tuning" can maybe allow you to eek out a few more goodies that sound "just not quite as bad" as the surrounding iron. I can understand this conceptually, though I can't IMAGINE being good enough to actually pull this off in the field! But, one other thing that causes me to pause a bit about this whole premise, and that is this...
IF a detector could theoretically ID, say, a 2" nail perfectly (at say, 14.0) -- no matter its orientation, depth, etc., and if all the nails at your site were of this 2" type, then I can see where setting your disc at 14 and hearing these nails, but setting it at 15 and hearing none of them, you might -- at that 15 disc. level, be inadvertently missing a good target that might be ID'd by your machine at 14.5, or whatever. BUT, my brain would think that in reality, the nails in a given site -- while many may register at 14, some would hit at 15 due to more rust or something, some may be longer, and thus register as 16, some may be 13 as they are sitting a bit more vertical than horizontal, one with a very slight bend in it may hit 17 or 18, one whose head was smashed more by the hammer than most others may read 14.7, and one that was 2" deeper than most others may read 11...in other words, in my mind, fine-tuning would indeed "change the equation" a bit, so to speak, but to me, with things much less homogenous than the ideal "nails read 14 but are gone with disc set at 15" scenario, my brain is still struggling to take this theoretical concept (fine tuning can "sort things out better" ) and understand how, IN THE FIELD, this fine tuning would actually be an advantage.
NOW -- I am sure my thinking is amateur, I really am; but nonetheless, that's how my inexperienced brain is looking at it. So, can you point out what I'm missing? This is a fascinating discussion, and I'd really like to understand this a little better...
And one other thing -- I sure do hope the tone of this is NOT, in any way, coming across as being "argumentative." That is totally not the case; this is simply my curiousity, and a realization that I have a lack of experience, and so I am asking these questions only to truly try and glean as much understanding as I can from that immense amount of info you have stored up there...
Steve
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2012 01:45AM by steveg.
|
Re: Keith Southern... what was your detector of choice in 2011? January 03, 2012 01:43AM |
Keith --
First of all, let me thank you for taking all the time to explain all of this. I have been known to wear out many a person by asking so many questions. But, when there is someone who is patient and willing to share knowledge, it sure does "speed up" the learning curve for those of us who lack the experience and time "in the field." So, I thank you very sincerely.
You know, it has been YEARS since you were in my shoes (a relative novice), and back then you didn't have the internet, and forums and the like, with "experts" sharing information with the world. So, you may not be able to relate to what I'm about to say, but -- I find myself just fascinated with, and in awe of, "expert" hunters...you all share these stories and experiences, and to me they seem literally "mythical" at times. I used to go to a site, swing for awhile, find a nice coin or two and then, after several hours, conclude "there's not much here." Then, I read where NASA-Tom says 90% of good targets remain IN THE GROUND, either masked or deep, to the point that they are undetectable with current machines; similarly, I read stories about guys who "make a living" finding incredible goodies in "hunted-out" parks (skilled and talented enough to find maybe 1% more of the difficult targets -- such that instead of 90% being left in the ground, there are now only 89%!) I just can't imagine this...to think that for every silver coin I find, there are eight or nine more, still there, that I have swung over but missed...wow! I recall a story, a link to a story, maybe, posted here not long ago, about a pair of guys who went on a detecting excursion back east awhile back, hitting only the "hammered" parks, and just CLEANING UP on the amazing finds. That is one of those things that seems "mythical" to me. BUT, having said that, it is less "mythical" to me now, than what it once was. I remember very distinctly the very first "partially masked" coin I ever dug. It was masked to the degree that I almost didn't dig it. It was in a very hard-hit, "hunted out" park nearby, which used to really give up the goods back in the day, but no more. This target intrigued me, and there was a time that I would not have dug it, but working it with a small coil, and really concentrating and thinking about what might be going on, I determined that there were two separate targets within a couple of inches of each other, one iron, and one maybe worth retrieving...so, I cut a small plug "inside" what I thought was the iron target, but including the "intriguing" one...and out of the plug came an otherwise easy-to-detect 3 1/2" deep Mercury dime. The "rest of the story" of course was that right in the side of the hole, I found a 4" nail. While this is ROUTINE for most guys here (and likely how those two guys who made all those good finds managed most of their keepers), for me that was memorable. That recovery was one of those types of finds that I would read about online -- finds that guys would achieve routinely, and yet I'd think "does that REALLY happen?" I have now begun to semi-routinely find a few hidden goodies in the well-hunted parks, and each one feels like a minor victory!
Still, though, each time I take a step, and ascend to where things that at one time seemed impossible have now become fairly routine for me, I look ahead -- only to see dozens MORE steps ahead, steps that are steeper and more difficult than the ones I've already climbed! Your posts, Keith, in this thread, are like that -- they are like a steeply-ascending set of stairs up a cliff...and it causes me to just stand there and say "how in the world could ANYONE climb these stairs" -- and yet, people have...I see you standing way up there, waving at me... That encourages me to keep plugging along...
Anyway, I veered off in a ditch there a little bit! In your answer to me, you did very clearly explain your thinking, and it does make sense. Seems like a "law of diminishing returns" thing -- in that if you have learned that most nails at your site read 14, each step downward in decreasing your disc. level down toward 14 means you will dig progressively more nails -- but will also recover some additional good targets. Eventually, though, you get to the point where dropping your disc one more notch, to try and recover ONE MORE good target, might require 1000 nail digs. At some point, I can see where it becomes not worth it (the time and energy are just not there to do so). SO -- on the "fine tuning" thing...you are saying that in some cases, the number of nails dug at 15 would become ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more, if you dropped to 14...but, might only increase, say, ten-fold, if you could drop your disc. to, say, 14.5 instead of all the way down to 14. I understand now. Makes perfect sense. While I STILL can't imagine the skill and knowledge required to hunt and make finds like that, it at least theoretically makes sense.
I will take two very important things out of this exchange.
1. The idea of hunting a site repeatedly, going "backwards" down the disc scale with time, each time lowering disc and digging "less likely to be good" targets, until you have it "down to the nails" (and yet, still, knowing you have left a ton of good stuff masked by the iron); and...
2. The idea that if I dig a bunch of iron at a site, and then re-sweep each hole and hear nothing more, that I should NOT conclude with any certainty that there is therefore nothing else down there. The idea of the "iron halo" left in the ground STILL possibly masking goodies underneath, I never thought of, but it does make sense. The idea that you could dig a bunch of iron on a hunt, and find nothing else good beneath, but then come back a month or more later, and THEN find some things that were previously "halo-masked..."
Thanks so much for your time, Keith. It really means alot to have members like you here with two traits -- 1.) TONS of experience and knowledge, AND 2.) enough generosity and patience to SHARE THAT experience with the rest of us. I know I'd be NOWHERE NEAR where I am at in this hobby, were it not for all the knowledge shared here that really, REALLY lessens the "learning curve."
THANKS!
Steve
First of all, let me thank you for taking all the time to explain all of this. I have been known to wear out many a person by asking so many questions. But, when there is someone who is patient and willing to share knowledge, it sure does "speed up" the learning curve for those of us who lack the experience and time "in the field." So, I thank you very sincerely.
You know, it has been YEARS since you were in my shoes (a relative novice), and back then you didn't have the internet, and forums and the like, with "experts" sharing information with the world. So, you may not be able to relate to what I'm about to say, but -- I find myself just fascinated with, and in awe of, "expert" hunters...you all share these stories and experiences, and to me they seem literally "mythical" at times. I used to go to a site, swing for awhile, find a nice coin or two and then, after several hours, conclude "there's not much here." Then, I read where NASA-Tom says 90% of good targets remain IN THE GROUND, either masked or deep, to the point that they are undetectable with current machines; similarly, I read stories about guys who "make a living" finding incredible goodies in "hunted-out" parks (skilled and talented enough to find maybe 1% more of the difficult targets -- such that instead of 90% being left in the ground, there are now only 89%!) I just can't imagine this...to think that for every silver coin I find, there are eight or nine more, still there, that I have swung over but missed...wow! I recall a story, a link to a story, maybe, posted here not long ago, about a pair of guys who went on a detecting excursion back east awhile back, hitting only the "hammered" parks, and just CLEANING UP on the amazing finds. That is one of those things that seems "mythical" to me. BUT, having said that, it is less "mythical" to me now, than what it once was. I remember very distinctly the very first "partially masked" coin I ever dug. It was masked to the degree that I almost didn't dig it. It was in a very hard-hit, "hunted out" park nearby, which used to really give up the goods back in the day, but no more. This target intrigued me, and there was a time that I would not have dug it, but working it with a small coil, and really concentrating and thinking about what might be going on, I determined that there were two separate targets within a couple of inches of each other, one iron, and one maybe worth retrieving...so, I cut a small plug "inside" what I thought was the iron target, but including the "intriguing" one...and out of the plug came an otherwise easy-to-detect 3 1/2" deep Mercury dime. The "rest of the story" of course was that right in the side of the hole, I found a 4" nail. While this is ROUTINE for most guys here (and likely how those two guys who made all those good finds managed most of their keepers), for me that was memorable. That recovery was one of those types of finds that I would read about online -- finds that guys would achieve routinely, and yet I'd think "does that REALLY happen?" I have now begun to semi-routinely find a few hidden goodies in the well-hunted parks, and each one feels like a minor victory!
Still, though, each time I take a step, and ascend to where things that at one time seemed impossible have now become fairly routine for me, I look ahead -- only to see dozens MORE steps ahead, steps that are steeper and more difficult than the ones I've already climbed! Your posts, Keith, in this thread, are like that -- they are like a steeply-ascending set of stairs up a cliff...and it causes me to just stand there and say "how in the world could ANYONE climb these stairs" -- and yet, people have...I see you standing way up there, waving at me...
That encourages me to keep plugging along...
Anyway, I veered off in a ditch there a little bit! In your answer to me, you did very clearly explain your thinking, and it does make sense. Seems like a "law of diminishing returns" thing -- in that if you have learned that most nails at your site read 14, each step downward in decreasing your disc. level down toward 14 means you will dig progressively more nails -- but will also recover some additional good targets. Eventually, though, you get to the point where dropping your disc one more notch, to try and recover ONE MORE good target, might require 1000 nail digs. At some point, I can see where it becomes not worth it (the time and energy are just not there to do so). SO -- on the "fine tuning" thing...you are saying that in some cases, the number of nails dug at 15 would become ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more, if you dropped to 14...but, might only increase, say, ten-fold, if you could drop your disc. to, say, 14.5 instead of all the way down to 14. I understand now. Makes perfect sense. While I STILL can't imagine the skill and knowledge required to hunt and make finds like that, it at least theoretically makes sense.
I will take two very important things out of this exchange.
1. The idea of hunting a site repeatedly, going "backwards" down the disc scale with time, each time lowering disc and digging "less likely to be good" targets, until you have it "down to the nails" (and yet, still, knowing you have left a ton of good stuff masked by the iron); and...
2. The idea that if I dig a bunch of iron at a site, and then re-sweep each hole and hear nothing more, that I should NOT conclude with any certainty that there is therefore nothing else down there. The idea of the "iron halo" left in the ground STILL possibly masking goodies underneath, I never thought of, but it does make sense. The idea that you could dig a bunch of iron on a hunt, and find nothing else good beneath, but then come back a month or more later, and THEN find some things that were previously "halo-masked..."
Thanks so much for your time, Keith. It really means alot to have members like you here with two traits -- 1.) TONS of experience and knowledge, AND 2.) enough generosity and patience to SHARE THAT experience with the rest of us. I know I'd be NOWHERE NEAR where I am at in this hobby, were it not for all the knowledge shared here that really, REALLY lessens the "learning curve."
THANKS!
Steve
|
Re: Keith Southern... what was your detector of choice in 2011? January 03, 2012 04:45AM |
Keith --
Nope, August...
I think you are right about the DNA thing, though...
Steve
Nope, August...
I think you are right about the DNA thing, though...
Steve
