Half Dime at 9" and iron bolt at 5" - Same Hole

Please pardon my negative attitude about this new machine (CTX), but my skepticism is based on many years of jumping on the bandwagon, just to find out after buying a newly released machine that it didn’t perform like someone else observed. Case in point, upgrading from the original Fisher F75 to the new LTD boost mode, was another mistake on my part. The LTD could not handle my dirt while in boost mode and the EMI was unbearable in many of my hunting locations. I even sent it back to the factory and the machine was returned with a clean bill of health. But for my area, it just would work properly. I am well aware each machine will perform differently in many locations, some good and some not so good.
I feel true scientific, real world, actual ground test are in order before I jump on the train this time. Don’t get me wrong, I truly hope the CTX is all and more of what I’m hearing and if it is, I’ll surly upgrade from my Etrac. I’m not a highly educated person in electronics, but I am in the Business field and know the importance of advertising in relations to the success of a business or the release of a new product. I really enjoy reading all the vast amounts of intelligent post made on this forum and can say for sure, I’ve learned a lot in the past several years. I’m so looking forward to some of your actual videos and written evaluations of the new CTX.

Neugene Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't show an illustration but you
> would be amazed at how little steel, as thin as
> 0.02" thick, it takes to drastically deform the
> field of even a 21T magnet.
> Now, scale all of this down to the LOW field
> transmitted by our detectors which is microscopic
> when compared to one of the aforementioned
> magnets.
>If a relatively small piece of iron
> can contain or warp the field of a 21T magnet, it
> is easy to see (if I am thinking about this
> correctly) how a nail could obscure a non-ferrous
> target beneath it. I am not saying that it would
> stop the detection field dead in it's tracks but
> it would definitely generate eddy currents
> deforming the detection field; possibly in such a
> manner that the detector can no longer read the
> target below it.
> It's kind of like looking into a clear pool of
> water. While the water is still it is possible to
> see the bottom of the pool. However if you drop a
> pebble into the water the resulting ripples
> distort the light waves entering the water and you
> cannot see the bottom, at least not as clearly as
> when it was still. When the transmitted signal
> from your detector hits a nail, or other ferrous
> object, the resulting eddy currents distort the
> signal obscuring any target below it.

This is the jist of it in relation to this topic I think. Besides this, along with the other technical data I left out of your post....Yea...what this guy said. :') I do have somewhat of a basic background in electronics to some extent, but anything more than a very basic understanding of the properties of detection fields is WAY over my head. Great post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2012 04:35PM by critterhunter.

Chris, thank you for the explanation, it is hard to put complex concepts in words that make sense to the rest of us - well done!

On the issue at hand I think one assumption many are making - or at least I think some are making is that the dead zone created by a large iron object is a cone that starts the same size as the masking iron object and gets larger the further away from the iron you get - an inverted cone. I am not sure that is correct. I think these interference patterns are more complex and it is possible that at 5 inches away from the bolt it was detected but could of been masked at 2 to 3 inches.

Comparison and assumptions are hard to make without having full details of the situation that produced the result. Experiments are only valid when they are repeatable and the variables are well understood. The location of any find in the ground is a complex matrix of ground mineralization and what other metallic objects if any reside in the area of detection. So we will never really no for sure if this was true or not because we could not compare two different detectors in the same spot and we were not able to determine the exact locations of any and all metal in the hole when the find was made.

To me it's is the variables an trying to understand them and how they react with the detector in my hand that makes this sport mentally challenging and very captivating, add in the thrill of a good find and it's easy to see how all get hooked.

Bryanna

Got to agree on that. That's why the only thing to really prove one way or the other how two machines do on a target at depth or badly masked is to sweep both machines over the target before it's dug. Has to be done from all directions because even an angle change can alter the results. Has to also be done with somewhat similar settings as much as possible. Meaning, the same discrimination levels on both machines and as similar as possible sensitivity levels. Those are probably the two most important performance factors involved, but on machines such as the Etrac or the new Minelab it would probably be a good idea to have the trash density settings and such set the same for as true of a comparison as possible.

If I see that, and another Minelab with a good aftermarket coil can't keep up in depth or separation, then that's where I'll start to even think about spending that kind of cash. However, it's going to have to be some very bold and clear advantages in those respects to motivate me. Not subtle little "it seems to be hearing it better" type of stuff that various variables can have a part in (headphones, volume level, etc). I want to see obvious blatant demonstrations of any better depth or separation. Once that hurdle is jumped over for me then I'll just have to have arguement of pros and cons in my mind about the 5.3 pound weight factor. Sure, balance helps, but I've heard that before and it meant nothing after a couple of hours of swing time, so I was forced to lighten up my machine with a custom shaft, a lipo battery, and a few other light weight mods, as I don't like to hip mount.

I'll also have to struggle with the sleekness factor in the water, because what I see with that screen sticking up and the broad backside doesn't look to good for ease of movement through water compared to something like an Xcal. Even when all those loops get jumped through for me it still comes down to that price tag. I don't know if I can make that last jump in my mind over that obstacle. For that price you can just about buy a new GT, Etrac, or Se Pro, and a used Xcal, or a new Xcal and a used one of the others. Advantage being a lighter land machine, and a sleeker water machine that is rated at dive depths. That last pro/con thing is the hardest to justify in my mind, so there better be some killer performance factors to help push me over that edge.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2012 05:53PM by critterhunter.

Posted in a new thread here....

This is the real world...

[www.youtube.com]

Lipservice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Posted in a new thread here....
>
> This is the real world...
>
> [www.youtube.com]
> =g-all-u

A couple of things:

1. The CTX after rewatching with video a few times CLEARLY hit the coin better from that one angle. More of a consistent 2 way hit, E-Trac was sometimes a two way but didn't sound as good.

2. I don't give much credence on a freshly buried target test IF the detector is FBS. Fast recovery speed machines do well on these tests, like my Jupiter. FBS machines don't. Too much comparison in the field on real targets to say otherwise.

It is a start. But the one REAL WORLD test is an actual target that has been in the ground for years (naturally) and cross checked with two or more different machines. NOT a freshly buried one imo.

Albert

Thanks Albert.

Quoting from the guy who posted the video...

"Used both detectors on the same target. A clad dime and a nail buried in the same hole. To me they performed about the same. The glare was bad on the 3030 screen."

critterhunter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quoting from the guy who posted the video...
>
> "Used both detectors on the same target. A clad
> dime and a nail buried in the same hole. To me
> they performed about the same. The glare was bad
> on the 3030 screen."

I read his notes but I watched and rewatched the video a few times. We can judge for ourselves. A few things were clear:

1- He worked the target more with the E-Trac
2- He didn't work it as much with the CTX and it sounded better.
3- Couldn't see the screen.

Regardless, a freshly buried coin is not the best for an FBS machine. Natural targets in the ground are the way to go.

Would like to hear your opinion on what I asked you before:

*I'm rather trying to figure out a way where it might happen, and you are using science to tell me how it can't happen. Try to think outside the box and just join me on this. I'm not saying your wrong, but I know what your saying and proving it isn't possible is *straight foward enough. You did your job. But trying to give a glimmer of how it might be possible, that is much harder imo. Especially if you stick with the rules ;-) And apparently you know more than me about this.

Albert

I don't know exactly what you're asking. Can you clearify it for me?

If you mean can I think of a way seeing two targets at once might be possible..? No, I don't see any way it would be myself from what admittedly little I know about detection fields. Far as I know the eddy currents are attracted to the first metal object they see and warp and bend around it with no real ability to reach deeper, or at least see something deeper. Only way I could see a possibility is if both targets are at the same depth and overlapping somewhat where the field could wash over them both as "one". But then far as I know there just isn't enough "vocabularly" in what a detection field can tell you to know there are two targets present, let alone what the properties of each are. The only minor exception might be the ability of Minelab's Iron mask to appearantly report a non-ferrous signal mixed in with a ferrous one. That I think they are able to do by processing the signal, as for instance the Sovereign seems to be able to report non-ferrous items mixed directly in with ferrous ones to some extent...But again those are laying at the same depth, touching, and in the field at the same time. A rarity, and still not a necessity, as with proper coil movement (wiggling and such) you can easily isolate individual targets to ID with any quality machine and a good sharp detection field.

I don't buy that the CTX is seeing multiple targets simultaneously when in discriminate mode (target trace description). I'm not sure what is happening with target trace pinpoint though (maybe the chip in the coil is involved here). When I get one in my hands then maybe it will make more sense. I'm just thinking it is displaying the targets as it picks them up, not at the same time.

I was talking about what Mike Hillis found out in his mapping of the detection field. Bryannagirl hit upon it a bit too. If the detection field does go in a bit and then back out like Mike's tests show (on his coil anyway), I wonder if an iron object could be in the dead space and then see a coin, not directly below it, but below it and somewhat off to the side.

Further, what if this dead space could be altered, changed, moved, etc. by using something in FBS2 technology (or any technology)? Could you then create more dead spaces in which to see coins somewhat under it? This is hard to describe but I hope you can get a little of what I am saying.

Now, the above two paragraphs are void if the eddy currents are attracted to the first metal object it sees though. That would end the dead space...

So, maybe another possibility, relating to what you said about iron mask, is that the chip in the coil is doing more processing in conjuction with the main cpu and adding a bit to the equation aka - advanced signal processing. Or, it might just be a way to stop others from making coils! I do wonder...

Thanks for the reply,
Albert

I've seen a couple of more posts with coin below iron on two different forums. I asked one for further clarification but here are the other two, pay attention to the second one as the ferrous coin setting made the difference.

[www.findmall.com]

Two other pennies were found literally under a rusty hunk of metal about 1 1/2" diameter at about 5" deep. The machine picked up the pennies perfectly.
I didn't have a camera, but wish I did at that point. My wife thinks the machine should come with one built in. I agree. Maybe the next model. - end quote

[www.treasurenet.com]

The amazing feature that I expected to be "to good to be true" is the Ferrous/Coin. I took a round piece of junk iron larger than the Morgan, and placed it both under and over each coin, the Etrac and CTX were dead silent(CTX showed reject cursor), once I switched to Ferrous/Coin it saw the coin perfectly every single time the accept target cursor was in proper location for the coin being used and was full of color each time. However the machine did not give an audible response. I don't know if this is a quirk that settings will fix, or if it is how it is. (if any body else has tried this please reply with your feedback so I and others can adjust accordingly.) If it is not a quirk and it is just the way it is, it will be amazing yet you will have to keep your eye on the screen. - end quote

new quote from same guy
The Ferrous/coin is so surprising that it would benefit anyone, but it stands out from the Etrac only when the coin is directly below the trash, I don't know if the price tag is worth this feature alone(for an Etrac owner) unless you suspect a large amount of targets in this position in your hunting locations, and it is not recommended for highly mineralized ground. - end quote

Well, I'll keep an eye on these types of posts in the future and hopefully in the next couple of weeks I'll have a CTX to test with,
Albert

Well, the Gentleman replied to me regarding the findmall post above:

Albert
What happened is this:
I know there is a lot of iron in this site and I was running Iron-coin target separation with A+1 sensitivity at this point. I got a good signal, not perfect but a good solid signal repeatable both ways. I don't remember the ID numbers but it noted 5" depth. After pinpointing, I dug a plug about 6" diameter and about 4" deep. I flipped the plug over - I dig a half or 3/4 circle plug leaving some grass roots attached and flip it like a bad toupee - and there stuck to the bottom center of the plug was the iron piece. I looked in the hole and there sitting right there were the two pennies, I didn't have to dig any more. They were aligned if not directly, very close to directly one on top of the other. It was an extremely telling picture of the target separation capabilities of the machine.
All but one of the pennies I dug were 2" or more deep, most were in the 4-7" range, they weren't laying on top of the ground like they were just lost.
I also hit my back yard last night for 30 mins before dark and found another penny at 11". My yard has been hit with everything from a XS2a, Explorer 2 with stock coil, sniper coil, SEF coil and WOT, excalibur, XT30 and XT505. When I need my detecting fix, just for a few minutes, my back yard is it. And it is only a small city lot, not much room to hide. So finding the penny last night was fun.
I will take a picture of the iron piece and post it at a later time. I need to go to the office and make up for the hooky I played yesterday
HH
MM

Just waiting for various machines to go head to head with it on undug targets. That's what I'll find most telling...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 04:47PM by critterhunter.

[www.findmall.com]

Above is thread I participated in regarding the Trace function with me trying to replicate Digger's testing of CTX in regards to iron 'see-through'. See pages 3 & 4 for my Omega test results. The reason I am posting this has to do with the half dime being 9" & bolt at 5". Below is part of my Omega test:

"Digger, replicated your test. My nail looks like the brother to yours. No joy. The Omega could not see the quarter via audio/VDI, whether at disc to just knock out the nail or full disc of accepting coins only. """"Now, when the nail was 2" above the quarter, and the coil was 4-5" above the nail, I would get a non-ferrous, but not a quarter, response."""""

I am wondering if the half dime was detected due to its particular depth in conjunction with depth of bolt, behaving somewhat similar to how my Omega did.
I am guessing on the Omega it was able to detect the quarter due to shape of coil field at a particular depth.
All theories welcome

Terra - Yes, I'm familiar with that "closed thread". Some of us just didn't get it ;-)

I think the Omega was giving you a non ferrous signal, which I'm betting was no where near an actual quarter signal, hence the naming "non ferrous signal". The man above said he got a signal as a penny - his words "The machine picked up the pennies perfectly". A non ferrous signal on the E-Trac/CTX would probably be on the left side of the screen being that the CO number would have dropped, as on your Omega but we have the 2D plane to consider. I think we are talking two different things Terra. But, perhaps two pennies would have added something to the CO numbers. There is also the dime situation as per above and that still read as a dime, but iffier. I am not saying the CTX is the best thing since sliced bread and doing what a few have claimed, but I do look forward to more of these types of finds and looking into them. I think if the number of these types of finds keep appearing (in particular with video and some measurements) the proof will be in the proverbial pudding.

Critter - I understand what you mean about newbies finding things cause of it being a new machine. This happened with me and my Jupiter recently as I wasn't familiar with the VID breakdown. I was digging some coins who's vid were lower than I thought they would be - that was due to a high frequency machine having the coin VID range a bit compressed near to the large iron & low conductor range. But that is a whole lot different than an E-Trac user going to the same VID system on a CTX and this is a whole lot different when you have a 2D screen to refer to. As per above, a penny that hit good & later a dime that hit iffy, but both still at least still hit where they should hit on the 2D screen, is not to be confused with beginners luck.

I'm going to just keep investigating some of these finds below iron with further questions. I can't discount them with assumptions. But I can discount them with investigation. And I can prove or at least point the finger in that direction with investigation also. If we keep getting reports of coins below iron at some point we will have to take them seriously. Perhaps it is just in a certain ground configuration, position or the like, but we will have to start asking the questions "How is this happening?" instead of "This isn't possible." - at some point.

Albert

I have a comment regarding the "pennies under the piece of iron" thing.

I am convinced that most of the time when someone reports finding a coin "inches" below, and directly beneath, a piece of rusty iron -- and then concludes that the machine "saw under" the iron and nabbed the coin, that what was ACTUALLY happening was that they DUG, due to a "coin-sounding" response given by the rusty iron piece, and then FORTUITOUSLY there was a coin deeper in the hole.

How many times have each of us dug a plug with multiple pieces of metal in the plug? Second question -- how many times do we dig a piece of rusty iron (usually a round piece, or a bent nail) that sounds quite a bit like a coin? So, combining these two thoughts, does it not stand to reason that at times, you will dig a plug with multiple pieces of metal, where one happens to be a coin and the other a piece of iron, but not just ANY piece of iron -- a piece of iron whose response just so happens to be one that mimics a coin-type target?

I am NOT judging any one particular dig or circumstance; what I AM saying is, if you detect long enough, I feel it CERTAIN that you will someday dig a piece of iron that sounds enough like a coin-type target that it caused you to investigate -- and that piece of iron just happens to fortuitously have a coin deeper in the hole, that was positioned directly beneath that piece of good-sounding iron. Obviously, when this happens, I could try and concoct some theory as to how my machine "saw around" or "saw through" the piece of iron to the coin underneath, or, I could conclude that I was lucky that the hunk of iron sounded enough like a coin to make me dig, or else I would not have been lucky enough to nab the coin that was lying underneath...

Point being, I do NOT doubt people who claim to find a coin "directly under a piece of iron" (and conclude that their machine somehow "saw" the coin.) I only doubt their CONCLUSION as to what was giving them the signal that caused them to dig, and eventually recover said coin...

Steve

Hence; the criticality of scientific 'controlled environment' standardized testing.

I agree. I've dug plenty of junk in the past that I think gave me a iffy coin signal, only to find a coin under it. The real test will be comparisons of this machine and a GT, Etrac, or Explorer on undug targets in the field. And, as said, if it can out do them in depth or separation, then I want to know how those machines compare to it in those two respects with a good aftermarket coil such as the 12x10 or 13" Ultimate. I'm hearing mixed reports on it's depth, with some saying it only is getting slightly better ID at depth but only in the worst (and thus rare) of ground conditions that most people won't encounter...Due to it's extra ground balancing function. So can a larger coil such as the 12x10 or 13" Ultimate make up for any advantage it might have in those situations, which right now sound rare anyway.

Both the 12x10 and the 13" have their own strengths in unmasking. The 12x10 with it's super tight left/right field, and the 13" sounds like it has some unique abilities not found on conventional round DD coils to unmask coins in iron. But, if neither can compensate for any better separation (which still hasn't been proven one way or the other yet), then what about an 8x6, S-5/X-5, or some other small coil? Any one of these small coils still gets outstanding depth. I've heard of coins at 10" with the 8x6, and the S-5/X-5 looks to get at least around 9" on a dime by some reports.

There are many other Minelab users who already have these coils in their arsenal so I'm sure they are waiting to hear these things before deciding to buy the new machine or not. Even if they don't have any of these coils, a coil upgrade is much cheaper if the results are the same. Still, I'm even waiting to hear how another Minelab using the same Pro Coil as this machine does against it in those depth/separation comparisons. That's where any real ability advancements it has or hasn't made will be more precisely contrasted.

Way to early to tell either way, but the initial limited reports of comparison to an Etrac on undug targets have me thinking there isn't any big advantage here, and if there is (remains to be seen) my money is on a good aftermarket coil closing any gap that there might be. If I see that then I'm not buying one. For that kind of money I need to see blatant clear visible advantage in either depth or separation.

I just saw a post from Andy Savage and a few others talking about the seemingly better ability of BBS machines to handle certain environments such as at certain beaches, in that BBS can tend to run smoother and get deeper than FBS under some circumstances. This is not the first time I have heard this, so it's something to consider for Xcal users when weighing their options. I'd wait to hear tests of the two in those regards. Sure, it's called FBS2 on this machine, but the frequency range is still the same as FBS. In my soil, I have a small suspicioun that the higher FBS frequencies were why I had instability and depth issues compared to my GT.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2012 02:48PM by critterhunter.

Steve - I agree in general but the one big difference with the CTX might be the target trace showing two (or more) targets in the ground with the good target being deeper. So, if you dig iron at 5" and then a coin at 9" and the screen showed both targets with the good one being at 9", we can't attribute that to chance or a false positive signal (at least if we can get some repeatability). I've said the preceding before and think it's an important point, potentially. Would love to film something similar and will be active with the camera.

Tom - Standards would be great and we are moving in that direction. Perhaps a small block(s) with a coin on one side and nail on the other (as you have) at different thicknesses (1", 2", etc. and burried in the ground.) Or no block with the same precision of placement and sizes/weights of nails and targets buried in the ground. The problem is, as we all have said at one time or another, it's just different when you come across a natural target as opposed to a planted one. And the results seem to vary depending on the machines used, meaning some machines perform better with fresh plants than others.

Albert

ps - I just found out I might have my CTX on the 15th, so the testing will begin shortly there after. Need a new spot though.

I'll be keeping an eye out for your test videos.

The stories of it unmasking stuff are interesting, but with no comparisons (or little yet anyway) between it and another Minelab on undug targets it doesn't really offer any contrast of comparison to judge if there is any better depth or unmasking ability. That's what I'm waiting for, though,...in field comparisons to other machines. Not just Minelabs, but also to other machines with good unmasking or depth reputations



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 04:49PM by critterhunter.

I agree, side by side testing is the way to go.
That said, when you pound an area with an E-Trac, and friends do the same, and then you pull quite a few coins from it with the CTX, you have to give that some credence.
Just spoke to a friend who was not sure about keeping his CTX. And yet has been telling me a few times about pulling more silver from places he has hammered with the E-Trac - he hunts a lot.

I kept asking him, "You sure the CTX isn't helping you? You kept telling me your spots were hunted out and now you keep telling me about finding more silvers?"
Well, here is his latest report and note, he was not all hot on the CTX at first, spoke of selling it just last week. He is also worried about the lack of coils on the CTX too btw.

start quote
well i can admit when i am wrong (Surprised smile) went today with my mate to smallish park that he said the had flogged many times so it was etrac'd out and i have been over it a few times with my etrac , so went there today 2nd hole 1872 shilling (Surprised smile) i was stunned but not as much as my mate, ended up getting 9 silvers there so what am i saying in this park which has junk the CTX did very well and so best i keep it hey (Smile) ordering 6” coil tomorrow. so a very good report i would say! went out again to the park i flogged hard got 5 more so wow 14 silvers shilling size and under most little baby 3pences but am very happy so i recon maybe the minelab coil is ok (Embarrassed smile) anyway i had fun and added some coins and time on the CTX.
end quote

I take his comments seriously btw,
Albert

When I see they are already coming out with a 6" coil for it that makes me wonder about just what ability it has in separation above and beyond other machines, as there appears to still be a use for a smaller coil on it. That being the case, I would figure the right small aftermarket coil on another machine will probably do much better in that respect compared to it using it's stock coil...At the very least, and as said a 12x10 or 13" Ultimate might also even any advantage up it has in that respect without needing to even go to a small coil. Since there are a wide varieaty of excellent aftermarket coils on the market for other Minelabs, and it appears coil choice is going to be restricted to Minelab coils only on this machine, I see serious potential inroads that can be made against it in terms of both depth and separation aspects, and still at a much lower cost than this machine. For instance, you could buy an Etrac and a large and small aftermarket coil for it and still be about $400 to $600 cheaper or so than buying this machine and only having the stock coil. Regardless of how good or not it's separation abilities are, I would like to see another Minelab with say an S-5 or 8x6 on it compared in that respect...Or, in terms of depth (if not also separation) I'd like to see how the 12x10 or Ultimate could even up any potential ID at depth increase it may have in certain grounds.

All this is of course pure conjecture, because we need to see these side by side undug target comparisons in the field. That's when we see just what this machine is capable of, or not...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 04:52PM by critterhunter.

I wish the iron target had not of been a bolt...

If it was a piece of iron or even a large nail I would of been more excited....

But a bolt throws too many problems in the mix...

Most all machine's will give a false positive on a bolt head...and give false depth readings as well...

Now Here's a story for you ....It was 1992 the sovereign had just come out....And it was touted as the great un-masker in iron...but we slowly learned better...I was hunting a fresh site with it and got a signal.. high tone and the bar graph meter was showing high coin.....I dug down and there was a large pan head carriage bolt lying flat ....I said to myself shoot!!! In my airtesting and even in ground hunt's I dug very very little iron...I ran the bolt over the head of the coil and it was just silent....then back over the hole and again high tone signal with meter reading in the high coin spot ...Well it turned out to be a 1820 large cent in the hole and the iron from the bolt had leeched to the coin....

I thought man this thing really does unmask.....I used it for years after that on zero disc no notch and it would leave a lot of target's in the iron spot's that my bandido 2 umax back then would pick right up...Till this day a sovereign wont false on an pan head bolt or a lot of even larger iron...But why the high tone with the coin bolt in close proximity?

Still not sure why it did it but it was the only time I ever saw such with the sovereign.....but the coin was placed dead under the shaft with the bolt lying straight across and they were fused with iron oxide ...But I never was able to recreate it again...Not sure if it was falsing on the head of the bolt to begin with or if the fusing did the work....Still a mystery after all these years..

Here's another story...for example...My buddy was hunting a yard an dug a few civil war relics. with his sovereign about the same time period...maybe it was 95 or so...Then went back a week later and hunted with a Tesoro Umax...He got a signal in the middle of the front yard quite loud...then thought let me check it with the Sovereign ...Well the sovereign did not make a peep on same target on zero disc...Well He dug it up and it was a 3 inch deep Franklin college Button!! for those who don't know that's a super high dollar button...Why did the Sovereign not hear it...?Right under the grass around the perimeter of the hole was a full size wire coat hanger...it masked it out...maybe if the Sovereign disc could of went lower it could of been heard..but it is what it is...the bandido disc only went to above nail when on zero so they are very close..both will dig foil on zero...but the sovereign still could not hear it even with a ultra slow sweep both using 8 inch coils...

So why did I hear a Large cent under a Carriage bolt but He could not hear the button in side a coat hanger...the bandido would not hit on a large cent under a carraige bolt but would hit the head of a carriage bolt quite well.....but yet the Bandido loved the button inside the hanger..The Bandido was faster recovery probably went a hair lower on the disc when on zero also when comparing to the sovereign..

So do you think the Sovereign saw the Large cent or falsed on the carriage bolt? I sort of think it had to do with a sort of fusion.from the track record I had with it... Yet I never dug another bolt with it..all my other machine's will false on the round head bolts' and dig them...That coin till this day still has strip of rust 3/8th's inch wide across the face...

See why I wish it had been something besides a bolt .....too hard to tell...I would rather see it pull a coin from under multiple nails...I have plenty of detector's to clear the large bolt out of the way...LOL!!

I need to see a a few nails in the hole towards the surface with the half dime repeating in the bottom at 9 inch's to be more useful ...


Ending note .. See why it's important to dig all larger than nail items form a site...Target's are there...No matter what machine you use ..get the trash out of the site the best you can...

If the 3030 can repeat this over and over again it might be something but if it is like the sovereign did that on time 20 years ago it has to be under strange circumstances..

Critterhunter - Respectfully here but it's a bit sensivite - Instead of bringing us deeper into doubt, deeper into more possibilities on how things might not work, why not address some of what has already been said? Why not think about how some of these stories may be true? We can't always have science there, I mean within reason. You are now bringing ones confidence into the equation which is a valid point, but you are just jumping over the anectodes and rarely addressing what has been said directly. It is like you are just out to doubt everything. I'm looking at both sides of the equation, at least I'm trying to, dealing with the hand we are dealt, not asking for more than what is within reach, but still trying to get answers. I'm probing those who make claims and planting seeds to get further information and testing done. I get the feeling that if we indeed have a side by side test on a real world target and the CTX passes, that you will start talking about trying other coils, then trying other settings and when we exhaust all those possibilities it will jump to sunspots (which is science), EMI possibilities and other things, further driving the conversation away from what we actually witnessed. It gets a bit tiring. On the other hand, maybe I'm too positive or too easily inspired, but I've been critical on many occasions and got into it, or rather accused of hating on Finds cause of things I brought up. I guess I can come across as being too direct as well, but my intention is actually the same as yours - to find out the truth, cut to the chase in a way.

I was having fun following your perspectives on the Finds CTX forum but I noticed the same thing and it got really really drawn out. It was difficult to find an in between. I noticed you just stopped posting there or maybe they kicked you off there too, I've been down that road there. In a conversation, to me, it's not about winning - that is why it's a conversation. Maybe it can get heated but then that is an argument really. Conversation is about learning, opening the mind to what is being discussed, seeing other peoples perspectives, exchanging ideas, etc. I really don't get the feeling that you are very open to some of these things as you never really address the positives. I've had to work to get you to reply but you just come back with deeper arguments and further doubts. I'm a bit confused as you say you are interested in this machine but you are continuously bringing up counter arguments on how things aren't possible and such.

All that said, I do agree with most of your concerns. All that said, it's not meant to be personal but that is hard when talking to ones persona...

Thanks,
Albert

I wouldn't argue that I'm being objective. Nor would I ague that others that are excited about it are being objective either. Rather, I'm simply being very cautious and skeptical as I've seen the rush to believe in a new machine over and over in years gone by. I've been guilty of that myself, but as I get older I'm hopefully a bit more cautious. What I would argue is most importantly the great equalizer between true believers and skeptics such as myself- And that would be objective testing, meaning between two machines on undug targets. That's all I'm saying, and waiting for...

In relation to the prior message about the Sovereign, I can say that I've owned many machines over the years, fast and slow, and yet I've never dug so many coins in iron than I have with the Sovereign even using it's stock 10" Tornado coil. I'm talking things like silver dimes with iron stains right on the face from the nails they had laying across them. Iron Mask being ON on the Sovereign appears to have some unique abilities to sound off to non-ferrous items when mixed in a ferrous stew. Minelab does say it increases the ability to pull non-ferrous signals out of ferrours ones. The true nature of this ability has been debated for years, though, with some saying it simply is lowering the iron rejection threshold of discrimination, while others (myself included) think something else is going on here than simple discrimination adjustment. However, even if it is true, the situation has to be the perfect storm, with the nail and coin at the same depth and very close and probably touching, so that the detection field is washing over both at the same time. Not claiming any magic ability here to see two targets at once or at different depths.

The GT is a bit more sensitive, sees small items better, and goes a bit deeper than all the prior Sovereign models. Also, coil choice is of primary importance. The prior Sovereign models had some rather bad (and heavy) coils on some of them like the old 8 and 10" BBS coils. The Tornado puts out a much cleaner field, is more stabile, and gets deeper. Besides the Tornados, the only other factory coil I hear any praise about is the Coinsearch coil. While many like this coil because it drew the tones out more on targets compared to the BBS coils, I have read that the very strength (drawing out the tones) also made for one weakness...That being a somewhat thick DD detection line, so separation suffered somewhat. The thicker detection line's perk though was sounding off more strongly or broadly to targets, and for that reason it's still favored for newbies while learning the machine.

As good as the 10" Tornado is, I'm even more impressed with the separation abilities of the 12x10. I've dug coins from right up against large pieces of ferrous junk, yet with proper coil use I could easily isolate and ID the coin and not even null from the iron. The left/right separation of this coil is just something I can't get over and am amazed at, and not just on a coil of this size. I may be wrong but even my S-5 doesn't feel like it has as sharp of a field width wise. The 7 & 1/4" Tornado coil (which they call an 8") is also loved by many for both it's depth (heard of coins at 12" with it) and it's separation abilites. Some rave that it's separation is all that one could hope for, but I opted for the S-5 5.5" coil because when I want max separation, and that means the smallest round coil I can find. To me, separation is all about the sharpest stick being used. I know people love the depth and separation of odd shaped small coils like the 8x6, but to me that's still a trade off in separation potential to try to increase depth. I know others strongly disagree in that respect, though, so I say to each his own as I know it's an outstanding coil and has made some really great finds for people.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2012 10:48PM by critterhunter.

Hey Critterhunter, I appreciate your honest response. They say not taking things personally is a sign of intelligence..., hey wait, maybe that was me. Anyway...

So, with iron mask ON on the sovereign you got my curiousity. I do wonder what they did as well. Which has me thinking about the chip in the coil on the CTX. Did they also do something clever?...

Consider this, if Minelab put the chips in the coils of the CTX not as a kiss of death to aftermarket coils (which I'm not sold on), but rather to do some pre-processing or the like (as their ad stated), why would they? How much speed can it add to the process? Is it a way to pre-process some of the time domain data (that needs time anyway) and then send it up to the main unit when finished - yeah, a split second. I really hope they didn't do the chips as an aftermarket lock. And supposing they didn't, why do it?

Also, regarding coils, Bryce on the Explorer forums stated that the 13" Tornado separates better than the 12X13 NEL, but that is doesn't appear as sensitive. He said the 13" Tornado was superior in every other way. Have you tried that coil, as it is a DD coil and not SEF...?

Albert

I haven't tried the 13" Ultimate yet for the Sovereign, but I hear Kellyco will soon carry it as they do make a Sovereign version now. I've followed Bryce's excellent coil reviews closely, but haven't (must have missed it?) seen him talk about the NEL coil in comparison to the Ultimate. He does say the Ultimate doesn't separation (think he said that) as well as the 12x10, but that the Ultimate appears to have some unique unmasking ability in iron not seen on conventional round DD coils. The Ultimate appears to be modeling somewhat after the Pro Coil, and both I think aren't quite true what you would call round DD coils. They look similar, and appear to have improved separation abilities over a plain old round DD coil.

Bryce did say that up until the Ultimate, he's never used a coil other than the 12x10 that made deep targets sound so loud and hit so hard. That sounds to me like it gets at least as deep as the 12x10, but I don't think he's come right out and said that yet. I'm reading with interest to see if that Ultimate coil gets as deep as the 12x10, and perhaps might even be a bit deeper. Of course that might largely depend on your soil, as there is a certain point in coil size where due to the extra ground matrix they are taking in they begin to degrade at least target ID at depth, if not actual depth. That obviously depends on the minerals in your soil, as I've said for some the 15x12 is deeper on coins than the 12x10 (not sure if it's as deep on dime sized coins, but I know they say it's not as deep for sure on smaller coins). But, for me, on dimes it was not as deep as my 12x10.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2012 02:29PM by critterhunter.

Here is another report and asked for further verification as per below. I edited the post below but here is a link: [www.minelabowners.com]

Hoth -

Settings: All-Metal and combined Audio - Iron set to a low ''hum''.

In this setting the CTX 3030 is quick and does not ''null'' at iron.
I was able to hear a little piece of aluminum underneath a piece of iron that was 5 times the size of the aluminum and at least 20 cm deep.

The sounds are much clearer than the E-Trac, even when the target was deep.
I am also convinced that the CTX 3030 is detecting deeper than the E-Trac and the Déus.

Me -

This is the type of info I've been looking at. You are the 3rd or 4th person who said they found non ferrous under iron. Now, sometimes iron falses but sometimes it doesn't. Did the target trace show you there was iron and a non ferrous target? How deep was the iron? The target? and how far apart were they left to right?

Hoth -

Servus Albert :-)

Target Trace is really '' das Tüpfelchen "' when it comes to be one of the big things i love the CTX 3030 for.
Iron '' hums'' in my combined Audio ID profile, rather than '' nulling '' and therefore the recovery speed is optimized.

To answer your question: i could see on the screen that i had iron and a good target under my coil, and even - und Achtung - if i did not look at the screen i could hear it….

And to all of you who said we CTX 3030 should keep quiet: that is a good idea :-))