new V3

Now that sounds like my F75 results

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rob..... very good questions and observations. The
> best way to 'see' the footprint width on a
> extremely deep (fringe) target requires a little
> bit of trained eyes....paying extra attention to
> the 'width' of the sweep whilst sweeping fixed
> target. This NEEDS to be done with the tip, center
> and heel of the coil....paying attention for
> null/blind spots of the coil. By performing such
> ... you will witness .... in concert.....TWO
> distinct performance characteristics in medley;
> That being the 'tightness' of the EM footprint AND
> the rapidity of the microprocessor clock
> speed....and how they work together. (There are
> other lessor factors involved). The resultant
> usually surprises some folks. To separate the
> two..... and measure each ... individually.....
> would require some unique RF field-intensity
> electronic measuring
> equipment,,,,,,,,.............,,,,,,,,,,,, and the
> resultant .... individually..... would not be as
> important as the cumulative/composite harmonious
> 'merged' performance that you need to witness in
> real-world situations. Real-time is always the
> 'final answer'.
> ---Also, , , the tighter the footprint.... the
> lessor the bad-dirt interference (usually). (((
> Stipulations imposed here too ))).
>
> And you are absolutely correct about comparing two
> different detectors. "Overdriving" (max'ing out)
> both units ................ then seeing which one
> detects 'said' target the best,,, may simply NOT
> be the best resultant for one (maybe both) units.
> ALSO; Using brand X detector to find 50
> targets........ then testing brand Y detector on
> those same 50 targets is ALSO unfair. This places
> Brand X unit at a 100% success 'starting point'.
> Taking brand Y detector...to find 50 targets,,,,
> THEN taking brand X detector to analyze/compare on
> the brand Y located targets ....... would start to
> 'even out' the playing field. READ: "HEAD-TO-HEAD
> COMPARISON TESTING" article on home-page of this
> site..... VERY important.
> This is also to say the obvious; You can find 50
> targets with brand X unit. Then .... taking the
> SAME brand X unit,,,,,,,,,,.............. change a
> couple/few settings...and THEN see how this same
> unit handles these same 50 targets. OR.........
> leave the 50 targets marked.............,,,,,,,,,
> then come back tomorrow!
> You may find there are a few targets that brand X
> unit will detect......... that brand Y unit will
> not detect. AND..... this is to say.....; You may
> find that brand Y unit will detect some targets
> that brand X unit will not see. If there exists a
> large disparity/differential between the two
> units; you will then have the solution you were
> looking for. One unit is the 'trump card' over the
> other unit.
>
> BEST REAL-TIME, REAL-WORLD EXAMPLE: Whilst
> performing final head-to-head comparison testing
> between concentric CZ vs. elliptical DD F75......
> resultants as follows:
>
> Situation: Approx 2-acre field that had been
> hunted by 2 metal detecting clubs... and VERY
> thoroughly...................,,,,,,,,,,,,, and
> with many different brand units. Their (the 2
> clubs) intent was to remove all non-ferrous
> targets.
> :::: Hunting with CZ.... many targets were located
> and marked. ((Several different approach angles
> were required to find many targets)).
>
> The F75 could find ALL of these targets that the
> CZ located.... except 2 targets. The F75 would
> then appear to be 'somewhat' inferior to the
> CZ.... as the F75 could not detect two targets.
>
> BUT......... THEN......... after recovering all of
> these targets out of the ground......... THEN
> taking the F75 to this same field...after the CZ
> was done........ and the F75 made this particular
> field 'appear' to be UNhunted. Well over 400
> non-ferrous targets were recovered with the F75.
> And ALL of these targets were verified
> 'undetectable' to the concentric CZ.
>
> I have performed this test..... in many different
> fields/locations...... with similar resultants.
> The largest differential ascertained...would be
> the fields with high-iron trash concentrate.
>
> Tom

NASA-Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The V3 coil design is different in so much as the
> V3 coil is 'round' vs. the F75's elliptical.
> Both are DD's.


... so an elliptical coil inherently has a tighter/smaller/narrower footprint than an identically designed round coil?

Yes........ in general, a elliptical coil will provide a tighter EM footprint over a concentric...... and especially if they are of DD design.

You know it's just a matter of time Tom. You'll need to get one of these Visions, have and experienced user 'hop it up' and give it a run in your test bed.

Now this prompt's me to ask/wonder: Does the V3 require 'hop it up' in order for it to be competitive? ,,,,, I would like to see BOTH sets of performance. Stock.... and 'hopped up'.

Tom

We'll never know until you put your hands on it. It's probably like the F75... capable at the default 'reset' setting but improved with a bit more gain.

It would be disappointing to need many hours on it just to be able to run it through a test. But you know some will say that you didn't adjust the preamp gain sufficiently, or the recovery speed was set too slow, or...

True. And it sure looks like White's is in the right direction with a DD coil. It's good to see other Mfr's going in the right direction. All along in our detecting history...... I'm not sure anyone realized just how many 'layers' of targets are in the ground. Once again: HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE MISSING......... IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT EVEN EXISTS? What would prompt you to dig..... it you don't know it's there. The advent of the elliptical DD coil coupled with a very rapid microprocessor (clock speed)..... sure has opened up many more doors........... but............. MOST importantly; MANY EYES! ((( Can we learn something from this!!! )))?

And I say to this: What ELSE is it that we don't know? !!!!! (Yet).

You don't know....... what you don't know!

I applaud any Mfr that 'opens an eye'.

Tom